Bresnan v. Grogan
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the Knox Circuit Court. — Hon. E. R. McKee, Judge. The newly discovered evidence was not cumulative. It established the occurrence of circumstances and facts which should have changed the result of the trial. In Devlin’s affidavit he states that ‘‘respondent told appellant to go and get the note and come down before the bank closed and he (respondent) would settle the note.”
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Knox Circuit Court. — Hon. E. R. McKee, Judge. The newly discovered evidence was not cumulative. It established the occurrence of circumstances and facts which should have changed the result of the trial. In Devlin’s affidavit he states that ‘‘respondent told appellant to go and get the note and come down before the bank closed and he (respondent) would settle the note.” There is a promise to pay long after he claims to have paid the $40 and according to his evidence he never executed any other note to this appellant. That agreement to pay, just a few moments before he refused…
1Opinion of the CourtBond, J.
*589Evidence, *588— Suit on a note for $40 begun before a justice, appealed to the circuit court where it was tried upon the issue of payment. The undisputed testimony is that the defendant paid the plaintiff $40 at one time, and shortly thereafter $4 or $4.50 additional, to cover interest; that such payments were made to extinguish a note for their aggregate amount given by defendant to plaintiff, the only question being whether the note so paid was the one in suit or one theretofore given to plaintiff by defendant. Plaintiff testified that he had a prior note which had been running two and one half…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Mayor of Liberty v. BurnsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1893
- State v. NickensSupreme Court of Missouri · 1894
- State v. MyersSupreme Court of Missouri · 1893
- Cropper v. City of MexicoMissouri Court of Appeals · 1895
- Shotwell v. McElhinneySupreme Court of Missouri · 1890
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Wagoner v. CaskeySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1922