Handley v. Barrows
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the Vernon Circuit Court, — Hon. D. P. Stratton, Judge. Any alteration of the. note in suit without the appellants’ (sureties) knowledge, made either with or without the knowledge of the-respondent (the payee in the note), operated to discharge appellants therefrom; and therefore instruction 3 given by the court is erroneous, and should not have been given had there been evidence authorizing it.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Vernon Circuit Court, — Hon. D. P. Stratton, Judge. Any alteration of the. note in suit without the appellants’ (sureties) knowledge, made either with or without the knowledge of the-respondent (the payee in the note), operated to discharge appellants therefrom; and therefore instruction 3 given by the court is erroneous, and should not have been given had there been evidence authorizing it. Bank v. Armstrong, 62 Mo. 59; Bank v. Bunn, 62 Mo. 79; Bank v. Fricke, 75 Mo. 178; Robinson v. Berryman, 22 Mo. App. 510; Bank v. TJmrath, 42 Mo. App. 525; Bank v. Bosserman, 52 Mo. App.…
1Opinion of the CourtSmith, P. J.
Statement. This is a suit on a promissory note for $1,200, dated October 23, 1890, purporting to have been executed by the above named defendants and payable to plaintiff, Handley. It was given for money. borrowed by defendant Barrows from plaintiff. The other defendants signed as securities for Barrows. The latter made.no defense to the action; but the sureties defended on the ground that after they had each signed the note it was, without their knowledge or consent, altered by erasing the word nine, which was written on the face of the instrument to indicate the rate of interest, and…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Capital Bank v. ArmstrongSupreme Court of Missouri · 1876
- Kingston Savings Bank v. BossermanMissouri Court of Appeals · 1893
- Fred Heim Brewing Co. v. HazenMissouri Court of Appeals · 1893
- Middaugh v. ElliottMissouri Court of Appeals · 1895