petition that the first publication of notice of the granting of letters testamentary was on May 12, 1994, and that their will contest was not filed until March 6, 1995. As such, they admitted that more than six months had elapsed since the first publication of notice of the granting of letters such that their will contest action was barred by the running of the statute of limitations found in § 473.083. Thus, there was no factual issue for the jury req f the exception or avoidance, subjecting the party relying on the exception to the statutory bar of § 473.083. Angoff, 917 S.W.2d at 211. In this case, because there is no dispute that the appellants pled the Bos-worth exception to the affirmative defens W.2d 584, 590 (Mo.App.1983); Hays v. Proctor, 404 S.W.2d 756, 762 (Mo.App.1966) (<HOLDING>). The respondents, in their answer to the
recognizing that upon request the trial court may provide a limiting instruction to the jury holding that defensive theory must be submitted to jury when theory is raised by evidence from any source holding that a trial judge is obliged to give a correct jury instruction notwithstanding that request for instruction was technically erroneous if the evidence generates the subject matter of the jury instruction holding that plaintiffs request that inquiry be made of the jury about its intent behind the verdict was not a request to poll the jury holding that it is a partys duty to request a jury instruction submitting its defensive theory to the jury