Brooks v. Holt
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the. Andrew Circuit Court. — Hon. Wm. S. Hekndon, Judge. The defense in this case is payment, and the burden of proving such alleged payment is on the defendant. Tarnell v. Anderson, 14 Mo. 619; Brown v. Morgan, 56 Mo. App. 382; Mfg. Co. v. Henry, 44 Mo. App. 263. The receipt for $400 dated February 20, 1886, offered in evidence by defendant is not evidence of a payment on either of the notes sued on.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the. Andrew Circuit Court. — Hon. Wm. S. Hekndon, Judge. The defense in this case is payment, and the burden of proving such alleged payment is on the defendant. Tarnell v. Anderson, 14 Mo. 619; Brown v. Morgan, 56 Mo. App. 382; Mfg. Co. v. Henry, 44 Mo. App. 263. The receipt for $400 dated February 20, 1886, offered in evidence by defendant is not evidence of a payment on either of the notes sued on. (1) No declarations of law were asked by plaintiff and there is no legal question before this court. Thies v. Garbe, 88 Mo. 146; Hammons v. Renfrow, 84 Mo. 332; McHugh v. Meyer, 61…
1Opinion of the CourtSmith, P. J.
The plaintiff, who was the administrator of the estate of Silas J. Scott, deceased, brought suit against the defendant on two promissory notes made to the said Scott in his lifetime. The defense interposed by the answer was that of payment. There was a trial before the court, without the intervention of a jury, resulting in a judgment for plaintiff for $13.25, from which said judgment the plaintiff appealed.
*615There were no instructions requested or given, nor were any exceptions taken and preserved to the admission or rejection of evidence; so that it follows that if the judgment can be upheld…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Warder-Bushnell-Glesser Co. v. AllenMissouri Court of Appeals · 1895