Chicago Cottage Organ Co. v. Swartzell
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the Lawrence Circuit Court.—Hon. W. M. Robinson, Judge. We concede that, under the weight of authority, if the note was delivered to the payee, it can not be varied by parol testimony. But see Ande v. Dickson, 5 Eng.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Lawrence Circuit Court.—Hon. W. M. Robinson, Judge. We concede that, under the weight of authority, if the note was delivered to the payee, it can not be varied by parol testimony. But see Ande v. Dickson, 5 Eng. L. and Eq. 512, cited in State v. Potter, 63 Mo. loe. cit. 221. But we earnestly urge that the delivery of the note by Morgan for the purpose of getting it completed was not a delivery to the payee, and, a fortiori, the delivery by Swartzell before it was completed and signed by Morgan was not a delivery to the payee. A bill or note may be held in escrow until a…
1Opinion of the CourtBond, J.
—This action was brought before a justice upon a promissory note for $136.10, dated June 10, 1891, and due three months thereafter. Two of the defendants, Swartzell and Morgan, set up as a defense that, when they signed the note, it was agreed between themselves, Browning, the principal maker, and one Teeples, the agent of the plaintiff, that the other defendants were the sureties of said Browning, and that one Darroch should sign the note as, cosurety before its delivery. There was a judgment for defendants before the justice, from which an appeal was taken to the -circuit court where the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Massmann v. HolscherSupreme Court of Missouri · 1871
- Woodson v. RitchieCourt of Appeals of Kansas · 1889