Hacker v. Brown
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from, Carroll Circuit Court.—IIon. E. J. Broaddus, Judge. There was no consideration for the note in suit. The judgment of the court is against the law and the evidence, and. should be reversed.
Read the full summary
Appeal from, Carroll Circuit Court.—IIon. E. J. Broaddus, Judge. There was no consideration for the note in suit. The judgment of the court is against the law and the evidence, and. should be reversed. The defense set up in this ease does not come within the principle of Senslxaw v. Dutton, 59 Mo. 139, and same case 67 Mo. 666, and Jones v. Shaw, 67 Mo. 667; Bircher v. Payne, 7 Mo. 462, and other cases in this court, where it was attempted to defend the collection of notes by proving contemporaneous' parol agreements, contrary to the terms of the note, but the defense shows either a total or…
1Opinion of the Court
Martin, 0,
The plaintiff sued on a note dated Eeb*69ruary 17th, 1873, executed by defendant, and payable to plaintiff, or order, twenty days after date, bearing ten per cent interest compounded.
The petition is in the usual form. The answer admits the execution of tire note, and sets up a defense going to show that it was obtained by fraudulent representations, and that there had been, before suit brought, an entire fail-' ure of consideittion. The plaintiff replied denying this defense. The cause was tried by the court, and judgment was rendered in favor of plaintiff in the sum of $419.29.
No…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Kessler v. ClayesMissouri Court of Appeals · 1910
- Russell v. ReaganMissouri Court of Appeals · 1889