Crawford v. Doppler
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal .from Clinton Circuit Court. — Hon. J. M. Sandusky, Judge. (1) The statement sued on does not allege any promise to pay interest-, or that the claim was due, or had been demanded; nor was any promise to pay interest really proved. The statute, section 5972, provides when interest shall be allowed; and the petition or statement, even in the probate court, should show how the debt earned interest.
Read the full summary
Appeal .from Clinton Circuit Court. — Hon. J. M. Sandusky, Judge. (1) The statement sued on does not allege any promise to pay interest-, or that the claim was due, or had been demanded; nor was any promise to pay interest really proved. The statute, section 5972, provides when interest shall be allowed; and the petition or statement, even in the probate court, should show how the debt earned interest. (2) As the promise te pay interest could not have been made prior to the McAllister loan in 1884, no back interest should have been allowed; the instructions, however, allowed it from the…
1Opinion of the CourtBkace, J.
On the twenty-seventh of February, 1891, the plaintiff filed the following claim in the probate court of DeKalb county against the estate of D. J. Crawford, deceased, who died on the twenty-eighth of March, 1890.
The estate of David J. Crawford, deceased.
To Mas’y Crawford, Dr.
August, 1883. To money loaned deceased............. $2,500 00
To Int. on same to date, 6 per cent..... 1,100 00
■June 18, 1888. Credit by 1 cow......................$25-00
January, 1889. Credit by cash........................ 25 00
November, 1889. Credit by cash........................ 10 00
$65 00 $3,600 00
$3,535 00
Which…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Creve Coeur Lake Ice Co. v. TammMissouri Court of Appeals · 1901
- Jones v. DurhamMissouri Court of Appeals · 1902
- Simmons v. IngramMissouri Court of Appeals · 1899
- Quick v. WilliamsMissouri Court of Appeals · 1925