Hogg v. Breckenridge & Ferguson
Supreme Court of Missouri
ERROR TO ST. LOUIS COURT OF COMMON PLEAS. STATEMENT 'OF THE CASE. The administrators of Ferguson non-defendants in error, sued Daniel Potterfiold, Enos Garrett, fcnos Garrett, Jr., and Thomas B. Claggett, on a promissoi-y note made by them to Ferguson, the intestate, for $1,000, dated the 1st July 1840, payable ouo year after date with interest at ten per cent, per annum. The defendant, Potterfield, filed a cognovit, acknowledging the right of the plaintiff to recover.
Read the full summary
ERROR TO ST. LOUIS COURT OF COMMON PLEAS. STATEMENT 'OF THE CASE. The administrators of Ferguson non-defendants in error, sued Daniel Potterfiold, Enos Garrett, fcnos Garrett, Jr., and Thomas B. Claggett, on a promissoi-y note made by them to Ferguson, the intestate, for $1,000, dated the 1st July 1840, payable ouo year after date with interest at ten per cent, per annum. The defendant, Potterfield, filed a cognovit, acknowledging the right of the plaintiff to recover. The other defendants filed several pleas, alleging that the note was made by Potterfield 'as principal, and that they were…
1Opinion of the Court
Judge Birch
delivered the opinion of the court.
The only question properly presented by the record in this case, concerns the competency of Potterfield, a witness (and the only one) who was relied upon to prove the issue for the defendants in the court below—appellants here. Having been one of the obligors in the note sued upon, and failing to plead, there was a judgment against him by default, subsequently his cognovit to the action, and afterwards full releases by his co-obligors, as to subsequent costs and interest beyond six per cent. By his deposition subsequently taken, it was proven that…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Samuel v. WithersSupreme Court of Missouri · 1852
- Ashbrook v. LetcherMissouri Court of Appeals · 1890
- Fink v. HeyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1890