Fred Heim Brewing Co. v. Hazen
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the Gentry Circuit Court. — Hon. C. H. S. ■ (Goodman, Judge. ' (1) The principal question in this case is, whether or not the adding of the word seal to the sureties’ signatures is such an alteration of the bond as to avoid it and release the sureties.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Gentry Circuit Court. — Hon. C. H. S. ■ (Goodman, Judge. ' (1) The principal question in this case is, whether or not the adding of the word seal to the sureties’ signatures is such an alteration of the bond as to avoid it and release the sureties. The evidence in this case is uncontradicted, that the bond was received at Kansas City by the plaintiff and obligee in the identical form in which it was sued upon, and, if the seal was added after the sureties signed, such additions were made by some party other than the obligee. State to use v. Potter, 63 Mo. 212; Brown v. Baker,…
1Opinion
ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.
Since announcing the foregoing opinion, we hiave been induced — because of a motion for rehearing filed by plaintiff ;s learned counsel — to give the case a more extended investigation, and after a careful review of numerous authorities, some of which are cited by counsel and many others disclosed by our own research, we yet feel constrained to adhere to the position we have already taken. The defense here, it must be admitted, is rather technical than meritorious. But sureties are entitled to technical defenses; they are favorites of the law, As often declared they…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Smith v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1865
- Capital Bank v. ArmstrongSupreme Court of Missouri · 1876
- State v. CraigSupreme Court of Iowa · 1882
- Trigg v. TaylorSupreme Court of Missouri · 1858
- State v. McGonigleSupreme Court of Missouri · 1890
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.