Missouri Appeal Reports Volume 46 (Paperback)

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1892 edition. Excerpt: ... action of the court was not erroneous. The rule in regard to objections to evidence in this state is succinctly stated in the case of Hannibal & S1.'-. Joe Ry. O0. '0. i001'e, 37 Mo. 341, thus: "Evidence should be admitted or excluded when it is offered on the trial, and the bill of exceptions should show "that the objections were made when the evidence was offered, and the specific ground of objections should be stated at the time, otherwise the objections will be presumed to have been waived. When evidence has been admitted with or without objection, it is proper for the court to give instructions upon the legal effect of such evidence; and, if no sufiicient evidence has been introduced to warrant the jury in finding a verdict for the plaintiff, the court may instruct the jury to find for the defendant, unless the plaintiff will take a nonsuit." This brings us to the controlling question, namely, whether there was substantial evidence to warrant the judgment as far as it affects the lien. If the plaintiff failed to establish any of the essential facts which would entitle him to a mechanic's lien, the judgment must be reversed, even though no objections were made to any part of his evidence. A judgment unsupported by substantial evidence, when challenged on that ground upon appeal from that judgment, cannot stand. The law demands that judgments should be rendered upon sufficient pleadings and substantial evidence, and when they are rendered in opposition to this rule they are judgments against the law. As there was substantial evidence that the plaintiff had performed his contract, and had done extra work at least equal in value to the amount awarded to him by the court on that account, there is nothing...