Murrill v. Handy
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Henry Circuit Court. contended that the note was void for uncertainty, and could not be explained by parol evidence. Davis v. Davis, 8 Mo. Rep. 58. 1 Phill. Ev. 538. 1 Chit-an PL 73, 80. 2 N. H. Rep. 160. 4 ib. 21. 5 Mo. 102, contended that parol evidence was admissible to explain tbe note. Mien v. Lyons, 2 Wash. C. C. R. 475. Brown v. Gilman, 18 Mass. Rep. 161. Boyd v. Brotherton, 10 Cowen, 98. 11 Mo. Rep. 142.
1Opinion of the Court
Gamble, Judge,
delivered tbe opinion of tbe court.
Murrill sued Handy and Barnett before a justice of the peace, on a note in these words : “On or before the 25th day of December next, we, or either of us, promise to pay Lemuel Murrill, the sum of fifty-two 25-100, for value received. March 15,1850. CHARLES N. HANDY,
J. B. BARNETT.”
The case was taken by Handy to the Circuit Court by appeal after judgment rendered by the justice in favor of the plaintiff, and judgment being rendered against him by the Circuit Court, he brings the case here upon an appeal.
It is argued, that the Circuit Court erred…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Collier v. BuddSupreme Court of Missouri · 1842
3Cited by6 opinions
- Rembert v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1875
- Fulenwider v. FulenwiderSupreme Court of Missouri · 1873
- State v. SchwartzWisconsin Supreme Court · 1885
- Heidegger v. RollMissouri Court of Appeals · 1912
- Eldridge v. KayAppellate Court of Illinois · 1906
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.