Bailey v. Gilman Bank
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from Harrison Circuit Court. — Ho». P. C. Stepp, Judge. (1) Eeplevin may be maintained to recover a note obtained by fraud. Goodger v. Finn, 10 Mo. App. 1. c. 231; Goldsmith v. Taussig, 60 Mo.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Harrison Circuit Court. — Ho». P. C. Stepp, Judge. (1) Eeplevin may be maintained to recover a note obtained by fraud. Goodger v. Finn, 10 Mo. App. 1. c. 231; Goldsmith v. Taussig, 60 Mo. App. 460; Gotcher v. Haefner, 107 Mo. 1. c. 277; Keim v. Vette, 167 Mo. 389. (2) The foregoing observations show that a note, though paid, has a value to the maker, and where it is thus paid, and the plaintiff as against the defendant, is entitled to the possession, it is enough to state a nominal money value. Savery' v. Hays, 20 Iowa 25; s. c., 89 Am. Dee. 512. (3) The only interest in the land…
1Opinion of the CourtSmith, P. J.
This is an action of replevin to recover the possession of .a non-negotiable promissory note. The case presented by the record is about this: The defendant Beckner. on August 26, 1901, by deed of that date, conveyed to plaintiff a certain tract of land for the expressed consideration of $2,300, subject to a deed of trust for $1,675 and the interest thereon. It is in effect conceded that defendant Beckner fraudulently misrepresented to plaintiff that there were no incumbrances on said tract of land except the $1,675 deed of trust and one year’s interest thereon, amounting to $134, and that by…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- First National Bank v. PeckSupreme Court of Kansas · 1871
- Bassett v. BrownMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1870
- Brown v. WeldonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1887
- Compton v. ParsonsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1882
- Wicks v. SmithSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1879
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Dahler v. Meistrell.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1929
- Wood v. SetliffSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1960
- Dahler v. Meistrell.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1929