safe rule in Missouri

1921Co., 145 Mo. l. c. 116, in which we held, citing with approval Vineyard v. Lynch, 86 Mo. 684 , that the only safe rule is to regard the amount claimed in the petition as the amount in dispute until the claim has been reduced to a judgment.

1898Vineyard v. Lynch, 86 Mo. 684 .

1912In Nicholls v. Webb, 8 Wheat. 326 , the U. S. Supreme Court says in a case where the book entry of a deceased notary was received to prove a protest: “We think it a safe principle that memorandums made by a person in the ordinary course of his business, of acts or matters which his duty in such business requires him to do for others, in case of his death are admissible evidence of the acts and matters so done.” A full discussion of this question is found in 2 Wigmore on Evidence, p. 1880.

1905Jutice Story, in Nicholas v. Webb, 8 Wheat. 326 , speaking of this class of memorandums said: “We think it a safe principle that memorandums made by a person in the ordinary course of his business, of acts or matters which his duty in such business requires him to do for others, in case of his death, are admissible evidence of the acts and matters so done.” A like ruling was made in Lewis v. Marshall, 5 Peters 470 ; and in Blackburn v. Crawfords, 70 U. S. 175 , the court ruled: “Independent of statute requiring it to be kept, a baptismal register of a church, in which entries of baptism are ma

1973The only safe rule is to confine the right to recover to those who enter into the contract : if we go one step beyond that, there is no reason why we should not go fifty.’ ” Westerhold, supra, at 77 .

1967The only safe rule is to confine the right to recover to those who enter into the contract: if we go one step beyond that, therq is no reason why we should not go fifty.” See also Kahl v. Love, 37 N.J.L. 5 .

1954The test to be applied in the asylum state on the sufficiency of an indictment was exhaustively considered by the Supreme Court of the United States in Pierce v. Creecy, supra, where the court said, 210 U.S. 387 loc. cit. 401 and 402, 28 S.Ct. 718 : “There must be objections which reach deeper into the indictment than those which would be good against it in the court where it is pending. * * * The only safe rule is to abandon entirely the standard to which the indictment must conform, judged as a criminal pleading, and consider only whether it shows satisfactorily that the fugitive has been in

1921The application of a test other than that which makes the definite amount claimed by the plaintiff the measure of jurisdiction would create the anomalous condition of conferring* upon the appellate court the right of review but limit its judgment, as it would, of necessity, have to be limited, in recognition of the regularity of the proceedings and to preserve the integrity of the judgment, to the amount claimed by the plaintiff. [Smith v. Royse, 165 Mo. 654 ; State ex rel.

1913It would seem that the safe rule for the Courts of Appeals to adhere to is one which permits them to examine the entire record in order to determine their jurisdiction, and if there is doubt, transfer the case to the Supreme Court. [Null v. Howell, 40 Mo. App. 329 ; Musicke v. Railroad, 43 Mo. App. 326 ; State v. Dinnisse, 41 Mo. App. 22 ; In re Opening Essex Avenue, 44 Mo. App. 288 ; Bache v. Hammett, 61 Mo. App. 457 .] Under the statute (Sec. 3938, R.

1913It would seem that the safe rule for the Courts of Appeals to adhere to is one which permits them to examine the entire record in order to determine their jurisdiction, and if there is doubt, transfer the case to the Supreme Court. [Null v. Howell, 40 Mo. App. 329 ; Musicke v. Railroad, 43 Mo. App. 326 ; State v. Dinnisse, 41 Mo. App. 22 ; In re Opening Essex Avenue, 44 Mo. App. 288 ; Bache v. Hammett, 61 Mo. App. 457 .] Under the statute (Sec. 3938, R.

1913It would seem that the safe rule for the Courts of Appeals to adhere to is one which permits them to examine the entire record in order to determine their jurisdiction, and if there is doubt, transfer the case to the Supreme Court. [Null v. Howell, 40 Mo. App. 329 ; Musicke v. Railroad, 43 Mo. App. 326 ; State v. Dinnisse, 41 Mo. App. 22 ; In re Opening Essex Avenue, 44 Mo. App. 288 ; Bache v. Hammett, 61 Mo. App. 457 .] Under the statute (Sec. 3938, R.

1913It would seem that the safe rule for the Courts of Appeals to adhere to is one which permits them to examine the entire record in order to determine their jurisdiction, and if there is doubt, transfer the case to the Supreme Court. [Null v. Howell, 40 Mo. App. 329 ; Musicke v. Railroad, 43 Mo. App. 326 ; State v. Dinnisse, 41 Mo. App. 22 ; In re Opening Essex Avenue, 44 Mo. App. 288 ; Bache v. Hammett, 61 Mo. App. 457 .] Under the statute (Sec. 3938, R.

1913It would seem that the safe rule for the Courts of Appeals to adhere to is one which permits them to examine the entire record in order to determine their jurisdiction, and if there is doubt, transfer the case to the Supreme Court. [Null v. Howell, 40 Mo. App. 329 ; Musicke v. Railroad, 43 Mo. App. 326 ; State v. Dinnisse, 41 Mo. App. 22 ; In re Opening Essex Avenue, 44 Mo. App. 288 ; Bache v. Hammett, 61 Mo. App. 457 .] Under the statute (Sec. 3938, R.

1908It is well settled that where the court by its instructions correctly and fully covers every phase of the case to which the testimony is applicable, it is not error to refuse instructions requested by the defendant. [State v. Franke, 159 Mo. 535 ; State v. Nelson, 166 Mo. 191 .] Another well-settled rule applicable to' the subject of instructions by the court is that instructions upon any subject should not' be given in the absence of evidence upon which to base them.

1908It is well settled that where the court by its instructions correctly and fully covers every phase of the case to which the testimony is applicable, it is not error to refuse instructions requested by the defendant. [State v. Franke, 159 Mo. 535 ; State v. Nelson, 166 Mo. 191 .] Another well-settled rule applicable to' the subject of instructions by the court is that instructions upon any subject should not' be given in the absence of evidence upon which to base them.

1907It is a simple, definite, duty, arising under conditions admitted or proved to exist, and imposed by laiv-.” Reasoning from such postulates, it has been well held that a peremptory writ of mandamus will not issue in cases of doubtful right. [State ex rel. v. Buhler, 90 Mo. 560 ; 19 Am. and Eng.

1907Ann. 1 . c. 569, the safe rule was guardedly announced that: “Mandamus does not lie unless the character of the act is mmisterial and imposed by lato.” In the celebrated case of State of Mississippi v. Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, 4 Wall. 1 . c. 498-, a ministerial duty, such as would be enforced by a court, was defined as follows: “A ministerial duty, the performance of which may, in proper case, be required of the head of a department, by judicial process, is one in respect to which nothing is left to discretion.

1907Goodloe v. Lanier, 47 La.

1905Jutice Story, in Nicholas v. Webb, 8 Wheat. 326 , speaking of this class of memorandums said: “We think it a safe principle that memorandums made by a person in the ordinary course of his business, of acts or matters which his duty in such business requires him to do for others, in case of his death, are admissible evidence of the acts and matters so done.” A like ruling was made in Lewis v. Marshall, 5 Peters 470 ; and in Blackburn v. Crawfords, 70 U. S. 175 , the court ruled: “Independent of statute requiring it to be kept, a baptismal register of a church, in which entries of baptism are ma

1905Jutice Story, in Nicholas v. Webb, 8 Wheat. 326 , speaking of this class of memorandums said: “We think it a safe principle that memorandums made by a person in the ordinary course of his business, of acts or matters which his duty in such business requires him to do for others, in case of his death, are admissible evidence of the acts and matters so done.” A like ruling was made in Lewis v. Marshall, 5 Peters 470 ; and in Blackburn v. Crawfords, 70 U. S. 175 , the court ruled: “Independent of statute requiring it to be kept, a baptismal register of a church, in which entries of baptism are ma

1897See, also, Clark v. Jetton, 5 Sneed, 229 ; Allen v. Allen, 13 S. C. 512; Weston v. Johnson, 48 Ind. 1 .