Loewen v. Hicks
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the Jackson Circuit Court. — Hon. J. H. Slovee, Judge. (1) By a clerical misprision the minute entry of December 16, reads “February 1,” instead of “March 1.” The judge in the bill, over his own signature, states that the extension expired March 1. This is also exclusively shown to have been the date by the stipulation of counsel, over their own signatures, agreeing that the. bill might be filed on or before March 15. It is fair to assume (such was the fact) that…
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Jackson Circuit Court. — Hon. J. H. Slovee, Judge. (1) By a clerical misprision the minute entry of December 16, reads “February 1,” instead of “March 1.” The judge in the bill, over his own signature, states that the extension expired March 1. This is also exclusively shown to have been the date by the stipulation of counsel, over their own signatures, agreeing that the. bill might be filed on or before March 15. It is fair to assume (such was the fact) that these gentlemen put their “O. K.” upon the bill before it was signed by the court. (2) The precise point now raised has…
1Opinion of the CourtSmith, P. J.
This case is the sequel to that of Hicks v. Hoos, reported in 44 Mo. App. 571. The ease there was that Hoos, being the owner of certain vacant lots and desiring to erect houses thereon, borrowed of Hicks the sum of $6,000, for that purpose, executing his promissory notes for that sum and deeds of trust on the lots to secure the same. He, with the Loewens as sureties (who are plaintiffs in the present suit) executed a bond to Hicks in the sum of $5,000, conditioned that said obligation was to be void, if the sum of money specified in the said notes and' deeds of trust hereinbefore referred to…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- State v. AppersonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1893
- Ham v. HillSupreme Court of Missouri · 1860
- State v. BrittSupreme Court of Missouri · 1893
- Hicks v. HoosMissouri Court of Appeals · 1891
3Cited by1 opinion
- Lewellyn v. LewellynMissouri Court of Appeals · 1901