Grimsley v. Admrs. of Riley
Supreme Court of Missouri
1. The instrument sued on was not a sealed instrument. Its date, is August 17, 1836. See Rev. Code, p. 118, sec. 3, which states that an instrument expressed on its face to be sealed, and having a scrawl affixed by way of seal, shall be adjudged a sealed instrument. The bond is exhibited, by consent, in the bill of exceptions, and expresses in the body of it to be under seal, and the name ended by a dash or scrawl.
Read the full summary
1. The instrument sued on was not a sealed instrument. Its date, is August 17, 1836. See Rev. Code, p. 118, sec. 3, which states that an instrument expressed on its face to be sealed, and having a scrawl affixed by way of seal, shall be adjudged a sealed instrument. The bond is exhibited, by consent, in the bill of exceptions, and expresses in the body of it to be under seal, and the name ended by a dash or scrawl. The Revised Code of 1835, p. 118, makes a scrawl equivalent to a seal. The a Mo. Decisions, p. 220, Cartmell v. Hopkins, carries out the same doctrines. The word seal, in the…
1Opinion of the CourtEdwards, Judge
The administrators of Riley sued Grimsley, Fleisch-man and Thompson, in the St. Louis circuit court, upon an alleged sealed instrument. Grimsley pleaded, 1. That the supposed writing obligatory declared on was not his deed. 2. That the slaves mentioned in the said wri*281ting, were never delivered and used under and in virtue of said writing obligatory. 3. That plaintiffs were not administrators of said Riley.
To constitute a sealed instrument, under our statute, it must express on its face to be sealed, and the signer must affix a scrawl to his name by way of seal. Amere flourish at the end of…
2Cited by5 opinions
- State ex rel. West v. ThompsonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1872
- Dickens v. MillerMissouri Court of Appeals · 1882
- Brown v. CohnWisconsin Supreme Court · 1893
- Moreau v. DetchemendySupreme Court of Missouri · 1867
- Alt v. StokerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1895