Combs v. Sullivan County
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Adair Circuit Court. — Hon. Andrew Ellison, Judge. (1) The answer states facts sufficient to constitute an estoppel, and defendant’s instructions, numbered 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6, should have been given. R. S. 1889, sec. 2049 ; Bigelow on Estoppel [1 Ed.] pp. 480, 590, 607 ; Rice v. Bunce, 49 Mo. 231; PeUcington v. Ins.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Adair Circuit Court. — Hon. Andrew Ellison, Judge. (1) The answer states facts sufficient to constitute an estoppel, and defendant’s instructions, numbered 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6, should have been given. R. S. 1889, sec. 2049 ; Bigelow on Estoppel [1 Ed.] pp. 480, 590, 607 ; Rice v. Bunce, 49 Mo. 231; PeUcington v. Ins. Co., 55 Mo. 172; Guffey v. O’Reiley, 88 Mo. 425; Vilas «. Smith, 25 Wis. 310; Swain v. Seaman, 9 Wall. 254. (2) The facts set up in the answer constituted an estoppel, and the evidence of defendant amply supported them. The court, therefore, erred in refusing to give…
1Opinion of the CourtBlack, J.
This action is based on twenty-two interest coupons for the sum of $35 each, due on the first day of May, 1882. Payment coupled with estoppel is the real defense interposed.
On the first day of November, 1871, the defendant county issued two hundred bonds of the denomination of $1,000 each, in payment of a subscription to the stock of a railroad company. Twenty-two of these bonds were claimed by different persons, the plaintiff having the largest interest in them. The controversy between the parties resulted in a suit in the state court, and the appointment of Brownlee as receiver, and the…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Simmons v. FridaySupreme Court of Missouri · 1949
- Platt v. FrancisSupreme Court of Missouri · 1912
- Bohlman v. RossiMissouri Court of Appeals · 1898