Boatmens' Savings Institution v. Forbes
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court. I. Where several parties, all apparently makers, sign the same note, parol evidence is admissible to show that one signs as principal and the others as sureties. (Parsons on Notes and Bills, 233, note a; Garrett, et al., vs. Ferguson’s Administrator, 9 ,Mo., 128, 129; Scott vs. Bailey, 23 Mo., 147, 150; Smarr vs. Schnitter, 38 Mo., 481.) II. The Court erred in refusing to permit appellant to strike out portions of his answer.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court. I. Where several parties, all apparently makers, sign the same note, parol evidence is admissible to show that one signs as principal and the others as sureties. (Parsons on Notes and Bills, 233, note a; Garrett, et al., vs. Ferguson’s Administrator, 9 ,Mo., 128, 129; Scott vs. Bailey, 23 Mo., 147, 150; Smarr vs. Schnitter, 38 Mo., 481.) II. The Court erred in refusing to permit appellant to strike out portions of his answer. The affidavitfor a continuance states that defendant, Parker, expected the witness Downing to prove that the note sued on was…
1Opinion of the CourtAdams, Judge
This was an action on a promissory note for sixty-six hundred and seventy-eight dollars and fifty-seven cents.
The petition alleged that the plaintiff was a corporation duly created under the laws of this State, and that the defendant duly executed the note sued on to one William Downing, who negotiated and transferred the same to plaintiff. The petition states that on the 18th day of August, 1869, there was paid on the note three thousand dollars, and also a payment of one thousand dollars on the 23rd of September, 1869, and claimed judgment for the balance and interest.
Several of the…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Opitz v. KarelWisconsin Supreme Court · 1903
- Bates v. ForchtSupreme Court of Missouri · 1886
- Edwards v. Bates CountyU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Missouri · 1897