Legal Opinion

Alford v. Thomas

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided May 4, 1942PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCave, J.

— This is an action by plaintiff in error (as plaintiff) against defendants in error (as defendants) upon eleven promissory notes, in amounts approximating $40 each. Trial to a jury resulted in a verdict and judgment for defendants, and plaintiff in error seeks review of the proceedings by writ of error. The petition is in conventional form in eleven counts. The amended answer, upon which the case was tried, admits the execution of the notes and pleads as defenses (a) that the notes were procured by certain fraudulent representations; (b) that the notes have been fully discharged and…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Metropolitan Properties Co. v. RideoutSupreme Court of Missouri · 1940
  2. McGee v. St. Joseph Belt Railway Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1936
  3. Peoples Bank v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1930
  4. Diamant v. Stein GreenMissouri Court of Appeals · 1938
  5. Martin v. ConnorMissouri Court of Appeals · 1939

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Robbins v. RobbinsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1959
  2. Nibler v. ColtraneSupreme Court of Missouri · 1955
  3. State at the Information of Dalton v. TaylorMissouri Court of Appeals · 1956
  4. Nibler v. ColtraneSupreme Court of Missouri · 1955
  5. Schuhardt Consulting Profit Sharing Plan, Allan P. Blosxom, III, Thomas O. Stoner, Stormy Night, LLC and TOS Ranch, LLC v. Double Knobs Mountain Ranch, Inc and Carlton E. Thompson, Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio)2014

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API