Roman v. King, 233 S.W. 161 (1921)
- Citation
- Roman v. King, 233 S.W. 161 (1921)
- Parent Document
- Roman v. King, 233 S.W. 161 (1921)
- Jurisdiction
- Missouri (state)
- Effective Date
- 1921-07-23
- Original Source
- https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3550984/roman-v-king/ ↗
Other Sections in This Document (44)
- Roman v. King, 233 S.W. 161 (1921)
- Roman v. King, 233 S.W. 161 (1921)
- Roman v. King, 233 S.W. 161 (1921)
- Roman v. King, 233 S.W. 161 (1921)
- Roman v. King, 233 S.W. 161 (1921)
- Roman v. King, 233 S.W. 161 (1921)
- Roman v. King, 233 S.W. 161 (1921)
- Roman v. King, 233 S.W. 161 (1921)
- Roman v. King, 233 S.W. 161 (1921)
- Roman v. King, 233 S.W. 161 (1921)
- Roman v. King, 233 S.W. 161 (1921)
- Roman v. King, 233 S.W. 161 (1921)
- Roman v. King, 233 S.W. 161 (1921)
- Roman v. King, 233 S.W. 161 (1921)
- Roman v. King, 233 S.W. 161 (1921)
- Roman v. King, 233 S.W. 161 (1921)
- Roman v. King, 233 S.W. 161 (1921)
- Roman v. King, 233 S.W. 161 (1921)
- Roman v. King, 233 S.W. 161 (1921)
- Roman v. King, 233 S.W. 161 (1921)
- Roman v. King, 233 S.W. 161 (1921)
- Roman v. King, 233 S.W. 161 (1921)
- Roman v. King, 233 S.W. 161 (1921)
- Roman v. King, 233 S.W. 161 (1921)
- Roman v. King, 233 S.W. 161 (1921)
- Roman v. King, 233 S.W. 161 (1921)
- Roman v. King, 233 S.W. 161 (1921)
- Roman v. King, 233 S.W. 161 (1921)
- Roman v. King, 233 S.W. 161 (1921)
- Roman v. King, 233 S.W. 161 (1921)
- Roman v. King, 233 S.W. 161 (1921)
- Roman v. King, 233 S.W. 161 (1921)
- Roman v. King, 233 S.W. 161 (1921)
- Roman v. King, 233 S.W. 161 (1921)
- Roman v. King, 233 S.W. 161 (1921)
- Roman v. King, 233 S.W. 161 (1921)
- Roman v. King, 233 S.W. 161 (1921)
- Roman v. King, 233 S.W. 161 (1921)
- Roman v. King, 233 S.W. 161 (1921)
- Roman v. King, 233 S.W. 161 (1921)
- Roman v. King, 233 S.W. 161 (1921)
- Roman v. King, 233 S.W. 161 (1921)
- Roman v. King, 233 S.W. 161 (1921)
- Roman v. King, 233 S.W. 161 (1921)
Full Text
496 charsFor the reasons we have stated we are constrained to hold that the court was in error in permitting the note and check to go to the jury as evidence pertinent to the issue before them. There is nothing in the record connecting them in any manner with that issue, while the testimony of defendant himself shows affirmatively that there was no such connection. That it was, when considered in connection with the action of the court in admitting it, highly prejudicial to the plaintiff, is evident.