Sachleben v. Heintze
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. D. D. Fisher, Judge. (1) Defendant’s answer does not state facts sufficient to constitute a defense to the notes sued on, and the proof is not broader than the answer. (2) It requires the same character of proof on defendant’s part to sustain his defense here as it would to maintain an action to recover back money actually paid, had he paid the $5,000 in cash instead of giving the notes sued on.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. D. D. Fisher, Judge. (1) Defendant’s answer does not state facts sufficient to constitute a defense to the notes sued on, and the proof is not broader than the answer. (2) It requires the same character of proof on defendant’s part to sustain his defense here as it would to maintain an action to recover back money actually paid, had he paid the $5,000 in cash instead of giving the notes sued on. (3) Statements made by a seller of a speculative property at the time of the contract of sale, concerning his opinion or judgment of the productive…
1Opinion of the CourtBarclay, J.
The action was begun March 4, 1889, upon seven promissory notes, all made by defendant to order of plaintiff, February 27, 1888, for various sums, aggregating $5,281, maturing at different periods (the longest being one year) after date.
The answer sets up, in substance, that the notes were given under a contract for the sale, to defendant and others, of an interest in a patent for a machine to manufacture barbed wire, and that defendant was induced to execute them by reason of certain false and fraudulent representations, the nature of which will appear further along.
The reply denied the new…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Mooney v. MillerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1869
- Montreal River Lumber Co. v. MihillsWisconsin Supreme Court · 1891
- Hunter v. McLaughlinIndiana Supreme Court · 1873
- Bishop v. SmallSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1874
3Cited by5 opinions
- Winter ex rel. Smith v. Kansas City Cable Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1901
- Winter ex rel. Smith v. Kansas City Cable Railway Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1898
- Aetna Investment Co. v. Chandler Landscape & Floral Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1932
- Beal v. Minneapolis Threshing Machine Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1900
- Elgin Jewelry Co. v. Withaup & Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1906