known rule in Missouri

1919The court said such a case was not "within the contemplation of the contracting parties." Railway Mail Ass. v. Moseley, 211 F. 1 , is an instructive case citing and reviewing many authorities.

1919The court said such a case was not “within the contemplation of the contracting parties.” Railway Mail Ass. v. Moseley, 211 Fed. 1 , is an instructive case citing and reviewing' many authorities.

2024See id.; Coon, 207 S.W.3d at 637-39 (similarly holding with respect to a defendant’s known violation of CDL manual requirements); see also Ingham, 608 S.W.3d at 715; Koon, 539 S.W.3d at 773 ; Kelly, 245 S.W.3d at 849 . 3.

2024See id.; Coon, 207 S.W.3d at 637-39 (similarly holding with respect to a defendant’s known violation of CDL manual requirements); see also Ingham, 608 S.W.3d at 715; Koon, 539 S.W.3d at 773 ; Kelly, 245 S.W.3d at 849 . 3.

2024The Trial Court Did Not Err in Submitting a Claim for Aggravating Circumstances Damages Against Defendant Great Plains We also hold there was sufficient evidence to support the submission of aggravating circumstances damages against Defendant Great Plains because there is evidence showing Great Plains itself engaged in conduct before and after the fatal accident in this case that was tantamount to intentional wrongdoing. 27 See Koon, 539 S.W.3d at 773 .

2018Id. at 529 .

2018Id. at 635 .

1987Eddings v. Keller, 400 S.W.2d 164 [6] (Mo.1966); Moss v. Kozeny-Wagner Const. Co., , 625 S.W.2d 688 [3] (Mo.App.1981).

1987Eddings v. Keller, 400 S.W.2d 164 [6] (Mo.1966); Moss v. Kozeny-Wagner Const. Co., , 625 S.W.2d 688 [3] (Mo.App.1981).

1969As stated by this Court in Drannek Realty Co. v. Nathan Frank, Inc., 346 Mo. 187 , 139 S.W.2d 926 , l. c. 929, “a waiver must be shown by some positive act or by some positive inaction inconsistent with the right in question.” However, *479 in the instant case, there was a positive act by the Buyers inconsistent with their contractual right to defer the payment of the purchase price until the liquor licenses were issued.

1969As stated by this Court in Drannek Realty Co. v. Nathan Frank, Inc., 346 Mo. 187 , 139 S.W.2d 926 , l. c. 929, “a waiver must be shown by some positive act or by some positive inaction inconsistent with the right in question.” However, *479 in the instant case, there was a positive act by the Buyers inconsistent with their contractual right to defer the payment of the purchase price until the liquor licenses were issued.

1968Neither can plaintiff’s actions be held to fall within the exception to this rule as stated in Fowler v. Baalmann, supra, at 234 S.W.2d, l.c. 17, as follows: “Nor do these facts present an instance where an employee was doing a thing he was employed to do, but was doing it in a manner prohibited by his employer, such as, an employee whose duty it was to oil certain machinery, but who (contrary to his employer’s direct and affirmative orders) oiled the machinery while it was in motion.

1964A waiver is a voluntary relinquishment of a known right, the ‘intended giving up of a known privilege or power.’ * * The conditional defense of Dorothy Shelton by the appellant would, we think, not constitute an assumption of liability by the appellant or a waiver of its right to deny its liability to the appellee for the judgment obtained.” In the case of Myers v. Continental Casualty Co., 223 Mo.App. 781 , 22 S.W.2d 867 , the court held that an insurance company did not waive any of the policy provisions where it assumed defense of a case under a nonwaiver notice and notice that the company

1964A waiver is a voluntary relinquishment of a known right, the ‘intended giving up of a known privilege or power.’ * * The conditional defense of Dorothy Shelton by the appellant would, we think, not constitute an assumption of liability by the appellant or a waiver of its right to deny its liability to the appellee for the judgment obtained.” In the case of Myers v. Continental Casualty Co., 223 Mo.App. 781 , 22 S.W.2d 867 , the court held that an insurance company did not waive any of the policy provisions where it assumed defense of a case under a nonwaiver notice and notice that the company

1957Mathews v. Modern Woodmen of America, 236 Mo. 326 , 139 S.W. 151 , Ann.

1957Mathews v. Modern Woodmen of America, 236 Mo. 326 , 139 S.W. 151 , Ann.

1955Gaddy v. Slcelly Oil Company, Mo., 259 S.W.2d 844, 848 .

1950State v. Taylor, 347 Mo. 607 , 148 S. W. (2) 802.

1950Trower v. Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad Co., 347 Mo. 900, 908 , 149 S.W.2d 792, 795 .

1950Trower v. Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad Co., 347 Mo. 900, 908 , 149 S.W.2d 792, 795 .

1938It uses the language “such bequests shall revert to the remaining legatees named in this paragraph.” This ease is one particularly calling for the application of the well known rule that -“the-law favors vested estates, and no remainder will be construed to be contingent which may, consistently with the intention, be deemed vested.” [Jones v. Waters, supra.] [See, also, Chew v. Keller, supra; Burne v. Frances, supra; Gardner v. Vanlandingham, supra; Deacon v. Trust Co., 271 Mo. 669 .] In Gardner v. Vanlandingham, supra, l. c. 1061, 1062, it is stated: “Almost every will presents some differenc

1938It uses the language “such bequests shall revert to the remaining legatees named in this paragraph.” This ease is one particularly calling for the application of the well known rule that -“the-law favors vested estates, and no remainder will be construed to be contingent which may, consistently with the intention, be deemed vested.” [Jones v. Waters, supra.] [See, also, Chew v. Keller, supra; Burne v. Frances, supra; Gardner v. Vanlandingham, supra; Deacon v. Trust Co., 271 Mo. 669 .] In Gardner v. Vanlandingham, supra, l. c. 1061, 1062, it is stated: “Almost every will presents some differenc

1938It uses the language “such bequests shall revert to the remaining legatees named in this paragraph.” This ease is one particularly calling for the application of the well known rule that -“the-law favors vested estates, and no remainder will be construed to be contingent which may, consistently with the intention, be deemed vested.” [Jones v. Waters, supra.] [See, also, Chew v. Keller, supra; Burne v. Frances, supra; Gardner v. Vanlandingham, supra; Deacon v. Trust Co., 271 Mo. 669 .] In Gardner v. Vanlandingham, supra, l. c. 1061, 1062, it is stated: “Almost every will presents some differenc

1938It uses the language “such bequests shall revert to the remaining legatees named in this paragraph.” This ease is one particularly calling for the application of the well known rule that -“the-law favors vested estates, and no remainder will be construed to be contingent which may, consistently with the intention, be deemed vested.” [Jones v. Waters, supra.] [See, also, Chew v. Keller, supra; Burne v. Frances, supra; Gardner v. Vanlandingham, supra; Deacon v. Trust Co., 271 Mo. 669 .] In Gardner v. Vanlandingham, supra, l. c. 1061, 1062, it is stated: “Almost every will presents some differenc

1938It uses the language “such bequests shall revert to the remaining legatees named in this paragraph.” This ease is one particularly calling for the application of the well known rule that -“the-law favors vested estates, and no remainder will be construed to be contingent which may, consistently with the intention, be deemed vested.” [Jones v. Waters, supra.] [See, also, Chew v. Keller, supra; Burne v. Frances, supra; Gardner v. Vanlandingham, supra; Deacon v. Trust Co., 271 Mo. 669 .] In Gardner v. Vanlandingham, supra, l. c. 1061, 1062, it is stated: “Almost every will presents some differenc

1936In this connection defendant relies upon the well known rule that a party is bound by the testimony of a witness he places’ on the stand in the absence of any contradictory testimony". [See Orlann v. Laederich, 92 S. W. (2d) 190 ; Raw v. Maddow, 93 S. W. (2d) 282 ; Lolordo v. Lacy, 88 S. W. (2d) 353 ; Walradt v. St.

1936In this connection defendant relies upon the well known rule that a party is bound by the testimony of a witness he places’ on the stand in the absence of any contradictory testimony". [See Orlann v. Laederich, 92 S. W. (2d) 190 ; Raw v. Maddow, 93 S. W. (2d) 282 ; Lolordo v. Lacy, 88 S. W. (2d) 353 ; Walradt v. St.