Case Name: LILLIAN W. CALDWELL, Respondent, v. J. C. VAN RIPPER, Appellant
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1900-06-04
Citations: 84 Mo. App. 563
Docket Number: 
Parties: LILLIAN W. CALDWELL, Respondent, v. J. C. VAN RIPPER, Appellant.
Judges: Smith, P. J., concurs; Gill, J., absent.
Reporter: Missouri Appeal Reports
Volume: 84
Pages: 563–564

Head Matter:
LILLIAN W. CALDWELL, Respondent, v. J. C. VAN RIPPER, Appellant.
Kansas City Court of Appeals,
June 4, 1900.
Appellate Practice: EVIDENCE SUPPORTING VERDICT: APPROVAL OE TRIAL COURT. The record is examined and it is held that the evidence and its reasonable inference support the verdict after its approval by the trial court.
Appeal from the Pettis Circuit Court.—Hon. George F. Long an, Judge.
Affirmed.
Montgomery & Montgomery for appellant.
The verdict of the jury is plainly the result of bias and prejudice on their part, and ought to be set aside. Ever since the decision of Landman v. Ingram, 56 Mo. 212, and McConnell v. Brayner, 63 Mo. 464, the acknowledgment of the consideration in a warranty deed has no other or greater effect than a receipt, and is open to contradiction. It is never held conclusive, and the testimony of the defense in this cause, without any contradiction, clearly overcomes the ¡prima facie cause presented by this receipt.
H. T. Williams for respondent.
The jury are the proper judges of the evidence and it is not the province of the courts to coerce the triers of fact to credit any witness. Gregory v. Chambers, 78 Mo. 298, 299; Cannon v. Moore, 17 Mo. App. 102; Hemelreich v. Carlos, 24 Mo. App. 264, 270, 271.

Opinion:
ELLISON, J.
This action is based on the covenants of warranty in a deed executed by defendant to O. B. Caldwell, who afterwards conveyed same property by warranty deed to H. T. Williams, who afterwards conveyed to plaintiff, Lillian W. Caldwell, wife of O. B. Caldwell, by warranty deed. The judgment in the trial court was for plaintiff.
The breach assigned is that taxes were an incumbrance on the land when purchased by defendant. Defendant admitted the taxes were unpaid, but contended that they were orally contracted to be paid by O. B. Caldwell as a part of the consideration.
The case is founded on that of Laudman v. Ingram, 56 Mo. 212, and the only question presented by defendant is that the verdict is against the evidence. After an examination of the record we have concluded to rule the point against defendant. The evidence and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom support the verdict after its approval by the trial court. .
The judgment is affirmed.
Smith, P. J., concurs; Gill, J., absent.