Grumley v. Webb, 48 Mo. 562 (1871)

Citation: Grumley v. Webb, 48 Mo. 562 (1871)
Parent Document: Grumley v. Webb, 48 Mo. 562 (1871)
Jurisdiction: Missouri (state)
Effective Date: 1871-10-15
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8046745/grumley-v-webb/ ↗

Full Text

1,504 chars

Mr. Krum “insisted” upon including -everything in the settlement, and Mr. Broadhead yielded to it. This fact is new and important, and rests upon the undisputed testimony of Mr. Broad-head. Webb understood that everything was settled; his counsel so understood it; Grrumley’s counsel so understood it, and, so *603understanding, “explained” tbe receipt to bis client, and supposed, when tbe facts were fresb in bis memory, that £‘ Crumley knew all about it.” Tbe fact of this explanation is also new and significant, coming as it did from a party who understood tbe settlement to embrace everything. Upon tbe controlling point of tbe case which so bung in doubt, does not this new evidence throw light ? To my mind it greatly contributes to remove tbe obscurity of the transaction, and in connection with tbe conduct of tbe parties and tbe other evidence, it gives a significance to tbe general language of tbe receipt in harmony with its terms. Against all this, against tbe positive testimony of Mr. Krum and Mr. Webb, given now as before, against tbe understanding of Mr. Crumley’s counsel, bis acts in making tbe settlement, dismissing tbe suit, explaining tbe receipt to bis client, tbe apparent abandonment of the case by the latter, and against tbe general equities of tbe case as they now appear, we are required to assume as truth tbe unsupported recollection of Mr. Grumley, and because of a former finding! If tbe last record presents' nothing new, I was greatly deceived as to tbe former one.

Other Sections in This Document (174)

Full Text