Hatch v. Bayless
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from Wright Circuit Court. — Hon. G. H. Skinker, Judge. (1) Although, there are alterations apparent on the face of the instrument, yet unless there is something suspicious about them, it will be presumed that they were made contemporaneously with the execution ■of the instrument. Paul v. Leeper, 98 Mo. App. 515; Bailey v. Bank, 99 Mo. App. 571; Cox v. Mignery & Co., 126 Mo.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Wright Circuit Court. — Hon. G. H. Skinker, Judge. (1) Although, there are alterations apparent on the face of the instrument, yet unless there is something suspicious about them, it will be presumed that they were made contemporaneously with the execution ■of the instrument. Paul v. Leeper, 98 Mo. App. 515; Bailey v. Bank, 99 Mo. App. 571; Cox v. Mignery & Co., 126 Mo. App. 682; Stillwell v. Patton, 108 Mo. 352; Kirkpatrick v. Wiley, 197 Mo. 163. (2) The presumption that an alteration of a written document was made prior to, or at least contemporaneous with its execution is not…
1Dissent
DISSENTING OPINION.
GRAY, J.
I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion. The case was tried before the court without a jury, and the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded on the sole ground that the court permitted one witness to testify to the general reputation of the *230defendant. I admit the evidence was not competent, but do not believe it in any wise effected the result. Since every witness is presumed to be truthful, testimony sustaining his character in that regard is only cumulative, and therefore, whether its admission was material error must be determined by all the…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Williams v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1905
- Lewis v. FrankleMissouri Court of Appeals · 1911
- Sheehan v. StackhouseMissouri Court of Appeals · 1881
- Barnett v. PepperMissouri Court of Appeals · 1905