Case Name: Albert Wilson, Appellant, v. John Reeves, Respondent
Court: Kansas City Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1897-03-22
Citations: 70 Mo. App. 30
Docket Number: 
Parties: Albert Wilson, Appellant, v. John Reeves, Respondent.
Judges: All concur.
Reporter: Missouri Appeal Reports
Volume: 70
Pages: 30–34

Head Matter:
Albert Wilson, Appellant, v. John Reeves, Respondent.
Kansas City Court of Appeals,
March 22, 1897.
1. Evidence: cop?: general objection: appellate practice. A copy of a written instrument may be introduced when the original is lost and a general objection of incompetency, irrelevancy and immateriality is too general and will not be considered in the appellate court when the evidence is competent for any purpose; nor can an appellant make specifications in the appellate court which he failed to make in the trial court.
.2. -: appellate practice. The appellate court will not consider objections to evidence when none are made in the trial court.
3. Instructions: covering case: abstract : propositions. In this case the instructions plainly and fairly submitted the issues to the jury and it was not error to refuse instructions containing propositions not necessary to the understanding of the case.
Appeal from, the Harrison Circuit Court. — Hon. Paris O. Stepp, Judge. '
Aeeirmed.
Sallee & Goodman for appellant.
(1) Plaintiff earnestly contends that the introduction of the chattel mortgage in evidence against his objection was a material and prejudicial error, for by this means the issue joined upon the note was transferred to the mortgage, upon which instrument no issue was raised by the pleadings. To introduce evidence upon an issue not raised by the pleadings is a material error for which the judgment should be reversed. 1 G-reenleaf, Ev. [14 Ed.], sec. 51; Rutledge v. R’y, 110 Mo. 312; Brooks v. Blackwell, 76 Mo. 309; State v. Roberts, 62 Mo. 338; Huston v. Forsythe, 56 Mo. 416; Frederick v. Allgaier, 88 Mo. 598; Nichols v. Larkm, 79 Mo. 264; Stern v. Mayer, 19 Mo. App. 511; Gutzweiler v. Lackman, 39 Mo. 91; Eddy v. Baldwin, 32 Mo. 369; Currier v. Lowe, 32 Mo. 203; Green v. Gallagher, 32 Mo. 226; Edmonston v: Henry, 45 Mo. App. 346; Morrison v. Garrison, 48 Mo. App. 54. (2) Again the court erred in permitting witness Wishon to state that Young Brothers brought suit against John Wilson for large claims in the store. It is a cardinal rule that the best evidence that the nature of the case will admit of, must in all cases be introduced.. 1 G-reenleaf, Ev. [14 Ed.] sec. 82; R. S. 1889, p. 1455, sec. 6131. This docket is held to be evidence of such things as the law requires to be written therein. Brownv. Pearson, 8 Mo. 159; Perry v. Block, 1 Mo. 484. (3) Again the court erred in permitting witness W. H. Scott to testify from memory that from the amount of property they listed that the Wilsons were insolvent and to testify that Albert Wilson never returned a list, although this witness admitted on cross-examination that he had never called upon Albert Wilson for a list. The action of the court in permitting the statement of Scott to go to the jury was prejudicial error. Boot & Shoe Co. v. Bain, 46 Mo. App. 581; Madden v. B’y, 50 Mo. App. 666; B’y v. Stock Yards Co., 120 Mo. 541; Eyerman v. Shuhan, 52 Mo. 221. (4) The court erred in refusing instructions 2, 3, and 4 prayed for by plaintiff. It was the manifest duty of the court to interpret all written instruments offered in evidence and its failure so to do was reversible error. State v. Lefaivre, 53 Mo. 470; Edwards v. Smith, 63 Mo. 119; Blakely v. Laurence, 59 Mo. 193; Bwrrellv. Blair, 61 Mo. 133; Michael v. Ins. Co., 17 Mo. App. 23; Fruin v. B’y, 89 Mo. 397; Chapman v. B’y, 114 Mo. 542.
J. G. Wilson and McCullough & Peery for respondent.
(1) It is clear that in the state of the record, appellant waived his first objection to the record of the mortgage. 1 Thomp. on Trials, sec. 706. Besides, the objection made to the first offer being a mere general one, without pointing out any specific ground of objection, was, in point of law, no objection at all, and does not entitle the appellant to be heard on it in this court. Clark v. Conway, 23 Mo. 442; O’Hare v. B’y Co., 95 Mo. 667; Buckley v. Knapp, 48 Mo. 164; Morgan v. Joy, 121 Mo. 684, and many other cases. (2) As to the alleged error in admitting the evidence of Pleas. Wishon. Nothing was said by the witness about a suit until it was drawn out on cross-examination. So this assignment of error has nothing to support it. (3) The alleged error of admitting evidence of W. H. Scott. Again the appellant is unfortunately inaccurate in his abstract of the record upon this point. He prints a question that was not asked, an objection that was not made, and omits a part of the ruling of the court, But the objection itself states no ground, and is the same as no objection, and the ruling of the court was not excepted to. Crabtree v. Vanhooser, 53 Mo. App. 411, loe. cit., and many other cases. We think no error can be found in the record justifying a reversal of the judgment.

Opinion:
Ellison, J.
This action is based on a promissory note which by successive assignments became the property of plaintiff. The answer pleaded want of consideration and that plaintiff had full knowledge thereof when he became the owner of the note. The judgment below was for defendant.
A number of questions were presented at the trial relating to various matters brought in question by the parties. But the record as presented here is such as to make it unnecessary to set out, in detail, the facts (somewhat complicated) which have been discussed in connection with legal propositions founded upon them.
Plaintiff's contentions of error are these: That the court erred in admitting in evidence a certain chattel mortgage given by John P. Wilson to this defendant and Phil Young. The objection to the introduction of this mortgage was that it was not the original, it being the record copy. This objection was overcome by proof of loss of the original. The further objection was made that it was incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial. The. rule is that when an objection is made in such general and unspecific language the evidence will be. held properly admitted unless it be incompetent for any purpose in the cause. In view of this rule we hold that no error was committed. The issues made by the pleadings. including the respective claims of the parties as advanced at the trial shows that the mortgage may very well have had a bearing in the issues thus made. The generality of the objection is such that plaintiff can not be permitted to come here and specify objections which he failed to specify below. Clark v. Conway, 23 Mo. 442; Buckley v. Knapp, 48 Mo. 164; Morgan v. Joy, 121 Mo. 684.
It is next objected that it was error to admit oral testimony that suits had been brought before a justice against the payee of the note in controversy; the objection being that the justice's docket was the best evidence. But the record does not bear out the ground of the contention here. The record shows the question referred to was not answered, and that the witness was then asked whether he knew "that John Wilson was being pressed in the fall of 1886." And that this question was not objected to.
The next objection relates to the testimony of witness Scott relating to the solvency of the Wilsons, but no exception was preserved and hence we can not notice the objection.
The next objection relates to the court's action on the instructions. And in this we find no error. Certain it is that the principal issue in the case as raised by the defendant to exculpate him from liability on the note was. plainly and fairly submitted to the jury. This issue was presented in the instruction given for plaintiff and in the two given for defendant. Three instructions were refused for plaintiff, but we fail to see wherein they could have b.een of any proper assistance to the jury in determining the cause. They asserted broadly three legal propositions which were not necessary to a perfect understanding of the cause by the jury from those given, which, as just-stated, set the issues squarely before them. A careful examination of the record satisfies us that we have no j'ust ground upon which to interfere with the judgment and it is accordingly affirmed.
All concur.