Jaffrey v. Mathews
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Jaclcson Ciradt Gourt. — Hon. R. H. Field, Judge. (1) The instrument before the court, when read between its four corners, is a voluntary assignment. If there were any doubt, caused by the fact that defendants have attempted by inserting a sham “defeasance” clause, to create an ambiguity as to its meaning, then when it is read in the light of surrounding circumstances, it is an assignment.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Jaclcson Ciradt Gourt. — Hon. R. H. Field, Judge. (1) The instrument before the court, when read between its four corners, is a voluntary assignment. If there were any doubt, caused by the fact that defendants have attempted by inserting a sham “defeasance” clause, to create an ambiguity as to its meaning, then when it is read in the light of surrounding circumstances, it is an assignment. Whenever courts are in doubt as to whether an instrument is an assignment or not, that doubt should be resolved in favor of holding it an assignment and bringing it within the operation of the…
1Opinion of the CourtBbace, J.
On the twenty-seventh of May, 1890, William T. Mathews, a merchant of Kansas City, executed and delivered to the defendant, Robert L. Yeager, a deed of trust conveying to the said Yeager, as trustee, all his interest in certain real estate in said city, to secure the payment of certain debts due the other defendants herein. On the same day he executed and delivered to said Yeager the following instrument of writing:
“This conveyance made and entered into this twenty-seventh day of May, 1890, by and between William T. Mathews, of Kansas City, Jackson county, Missouri, party of the first part,…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Union Bank of Chicago v. Kansas City BankSupreme Court of the United States · 1890
- Crow v. BeardsleySupreme Court of Missouri · 1878
- Hargadine v. HendersonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1888
- State ex rel. Holliday v. BenoistSupreme Court of Missouri · 1866
- Shapleigh v. BairdSupreme Court of Missouri · 1858
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Smead v. ChandlerSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1903
- Alberger v. National Bank of CommerceSupreme Court of Missouri · 1894
- Missouri-American Electric Co. v. Hamilton Brown Shoe Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1908
- Haase v. Nelson Distilling Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1895
- Sikes v. ChaneyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1927
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.