Britton v. Dierker
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from SI. Louis Circuit Court. There was error in the refusal of defendant’s first instruction. (Wood y. Steele, 6 Wall. 80 ; 2 Pars. Bills and Notes, 550-2; Chit. Bills, 182; Triggs v. Taylor, 27 Mo. 247; Henderson v. Bondurant, 39 Mo. 374.)
1Opinion of the CourtCurrier, Judge
The evidence given on the trial of this. cause tended to show that the note sued on was executed on the part of the defendant as the surety of the other makers ; that after the note was signed by him, and without his knowledge or consent, but while it remained in the hands of the other makers, the date of the note was changed from “October —, 1867,” to “November 17, 1867; ” that such alteration was made prior to its delivery and without the privity of the plaintiff. The note was made payable to the order of the plaintiff six months after date. ■ The trial was by the court, and defendant asked…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Wood v. SteeleSupreme Court of the United States · 1867
- Ivory v. MichaelSupreme Court of Missouri · 1863
- Waterman v. VoseSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1857
3Cited by6 opinions
- Barton Savings Bank & Trust Co. v. StephensonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1914
- Herrick v. BaldwinSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1871
- Robinson v. BerrymanMissouri Court of Appeals · 1886
- Forrest v. TobinCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1920
- Fred Heim Brewing Co. v. HazenMissouri Court of Appeals · 1893
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.