Section 204
- Citation
- Section 204
- Parent Document
- Duvall v. Stokes, 270 S.W.2d 419 (1954)
- Jurisdiction
- Missouri (state)
- Effective Date
- 1954-07-17
- Original Source
- https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5195275/duvall-v-stokes/ ↗
Other Sections in This Document (26)
- Duvall v. Stokes, 270 S.W.2d 419 (1954)
- Duvall v. Stokes, 270 S.W.2d 419 (1954)
- Duvall v. Stokes, 270 S.W.2d 419 (1954)
- Duvall v. Stokes, 270 S.W.2d 419 (1954)
- Duvall v. Stokes, 270 S.W.2d 419 (1954)
- Duvall v. Stokes, 270 S.W.2d 419 (1954)
- Duvall v. Stokes, 270 S.W.2d 419 (1954)
- Duvall v. Stokes, 270 S.W.2d 419 (1954)
- Duvall v. Stokes, 270 S.W.2d 419 (1954)
- Duvall v. Stokes, 270 S.W.2d 419 (1954)
- Duvall v. Stokes, 270 S.W.2d 419 (1954)
- Section 204
- Section 204
- Section 204
- Section 204
- Section 204
- Section 204
- Section 204
- Section 204
- Section 204
- Section 204
- Section 204
- Section 204
- Section 204
- Section 204
- Section 204
Full Text
751 charsNo doubt, plaintiffs’ testimony concerning conversations between the parties and alleged attempts to evict plaintiffs prior to issuance of the certificate on September 26, 1951, was admitted by the able trial judge On the theory that it was relevant under Count II of the petition, in which plaintiffs pleaded a common law cause of action for fraud and deceit. But, Count II having been dismissed at the close of plaintiffs’ evidence, such testimony could have thereafter no relevancy, materiality or probative value in proper determination of the sole issue under plaintiffs’ submitted theory, i. e., whether the premises actually were altered or remodeled “to such extent that a tenant could not remain in occupancy while the work was being done.” 3