Fowles v. Bebee
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the Chariton Circuit Court.—Hon. C. Hammond, Special Judge. (1) The defenses, as set up in the answer, were, first, alteration, and, second, want of consideration with want of good faith in the purchase of the note by the plaintiff.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Chariton Circuit Court.—Hon. C. Hammond, Special Judge. (1) The defenses, as set up in the answer, were, first, alteration, and, second, want of consideration with want of good faith in the purchase of the note by the plaintiff. The fact is, the real defense was want of consideration, but there was no evidence that the plaintiff was not a purchaser in good faith; hence all the evidence introduced, which was the bulk of all the evidence on the part of defendant, as to want of consideration was inadmissible. The chief purpose of which evidence was to prejudice the jury against…
1Opinion of the CourtGill, J.
Plaintiff sued the defendant on a note for $1,000, purporting to have been made by defendant to Potter, Chase & Company, in January 1888, plaintiff being indorsee for value before maturity. The answer contained two defenses: first, an unauthorized alteration of the note after delivery, by the erasure of the word “order” and inserting “bearer,” so that the note was made payable to hearer instead of to Potter, Chase & Company, or order-, and, second, want of consideration with notice thereof to the plaintiff. During the course of the trial before a jury the court, over the objection of the…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Stephens v. Hannibal & St. Joseph RailroadSupreme Court of Missouri · 1888
- Stavinow v. Home InsuranceMissouri Court of Appeals · 1891
- Knox v. Hunt & LabeaumeSupreme Court of Missouri · 1853