Legal Opinion

John Stewart & Co. v. Andes

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided February 6, 1905PublishedCited by 4 opinions

Appeal from Holt Circuit Court. — How. A. D. Burnes, Judge. (1) The jury was not mislead by the instructions, (a) We find many decisions where one word is used for another — “plaintiff’’ for “defendant” is the most usual. Trustees v. Hoffman, 95 Mo. App. 497; Bank v. Goddard, 8 Mo. App. 596; 0 ’Callaghan v. Bode, 24 Pac. 271; Shortelle v.'St. Joseph, 104 Mo. 121; Lin v. Railroad, 10 Mo. App. 134; Railroad v. Merritt, 47 S.E. 908; Nichols & Shepard v. Metzger, 43 Mo.

Read the full summary

Appeal from Holt Circuit Court. — How. A. D. Burnes, Judge. (1) The jury was not mislead by the instructions, (a) We find many decisions where one word is used for another — “plaintiff’’ for “defendant” is the most usual. Trustees v. Hoffman, 95 Mo. App. 497; Bank v. Goddard, 8 Mo. App. 596; 0 ’Callaghan v. Bode, 24 Pac. 271; Shortelle v.'St. Joseph, 104 Mo. 121; Lin v. Railroad, 10 Mo. App. 134; Railroad v. Merritt, 47 S.E. 908; Nichols & Shepard v. Metzger, 43 Mo. App. 615. (b) Then again instructions must be construed in their entirety. McKeon v. .Railroad, 43 Mo. 407; Liese v. Meyer, 143…

1Opinion of the CourtJohnson, J.

— This action was brought by the indorsees of three negotiable promissory notes which they claimed to hold by purchase from the payee for value before maturity.

The answer under oath in effect admitted the execution of the notes but alleged that after delivery each *246of them was altered by the erasure of the words, “and attorney’s fees,” from the face of the instrument. Also, that all of said notes were procured by fraud practiced by the payee upon the defendant in this, that the payee, assuming to be the owner of the sole right to. sell a certain wire fence machine in the counties of Buchanan…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Hamilton v. MarksSupreme Court of Missouri · 1876
  2. Hahn v. BradleyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1902
  3. Brown v. HoffelmeyerMissouri Court of Appeals · 1898

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Hamilton v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1905
  2. Johnson v. Springfield Traction Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1913
  3. Sands v. G. W. Marquardt & SonsMissouri Court of Appeals · 1905
  4. Hill v. DillonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1910

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API