Greenabaum v. Elliott
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from, Chariton Circuit Court. I. Respondents having appeared to the action on the note commenced by Dewey and failed to make the defense of payment, cannot recover back the amount they have been compelled to pay on the judgment in that case. The payment of the note to Taylor in his lifetime, if made, was a good defense to the action on the note, and being simply a defense, should have been made at the time, and not having been so made, is res judicata.
Read the full summary
Appeal from, Chariton Circuit Court. I. Respondents having appeared to the action on the note commenced by Dewey and failed to make the defense of payment, cannot recover back the amount they have been compelled to pay on the judgment in that case. The payment of the note to Taylor in his lifetime, if made, was a good defense to the action on the note, and being simply a defense, should have been made at the time, and not having been so made, is res judicata. (LeGuen vs. Gouvernenr, 1 Johns. Cas., 491; also opinion of Kent., J., p. 502; White v. Ward, 9.Johns., 232; Loomis vs. Pul ver, 9…
1Opinion of the CourtWagner, Judge
This cause was originally brought in the Probate Court of. Chariton county, and was presented in the shape of a demand against the estate of Samuel Taylor, deceased. There was a refusal to allow the1 demand in the Probate Court, and an appeal was taken to the Circuit Court. On a trial in the Circuit Court,, before a jury, plaintiffs obtained a verdict and judgment for the amount claimed, and to reverse this judgment defendant has prosecuted his appeal.
The facts show, that on the 24th of March. 1863, the plaintiffs. Greeuabaum, Oppenheimer and Chapman, executed their joint note to Samuel…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Loring v. MansfieldMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1821
- Rowe v. SmithMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1820
- Callaway County v. NolleySupreme Court of Missouri · 1861
- Loomis v. PulverNew York Supreme Court · 1812
- Battey v. ButtonNew York Supreme Court · 1816
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by24 opinions
- Donnell v. WrightSupreme Court of Missouri · 1899
- Smith v. SimsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1883
- Missouri Pacific Railway Co. v. LevyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1885
- Musick v. DodsonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1882
- Easley v. GordonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1892
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.