Hicks v. Chouteau
Supreme Court of Missouri
APPEAL FROM JACKSON CIRCUIT COURT. 1st. That the circuit court erred in permitting the Said plaintiff torrad in evidence to the jury the said administration bond supposed to have been executed by defendant (as one of the securities therein) upon the proof offered and given by plaintiff of its execution. The verbal testimony of Swearengcn docs not show that Ilix was present when he subscribed Hix’s name to the bond.
Read the full summary
APPEAL FROM JACKSON CIRCUIT COURT. 1st. That the circuit court erred in permitting the Said plaintiff torrad in evidence to the jury the said administration bond supposed to have been executed by defendant (as one of the securities therein) upon the proof offered and given by plaintiff of its execution. The verbal testimony of Swearengcn docs not show that Ilix was present when he subscribed Hix’s name to the bond. This was necessary, and that the same was done in his presence and with his consent, or by his direction, or that the instrument as a deed nr bond, was made by Swearengcn under an…
1Opinion of the Court
Napton, judge,
delivered the opinion of the court.
This was an action of assumpsit brought by Cyprian Chouteau, administrator of Francis Chouteau, to recover the half of $252 40, paid by said Francis as co-security with Hicks upon the administration bond of one Youcherein.
Only two points are presented by the record.
1. The defendant Hicks proved that he was an attorney and counsellor at law when his name was signed to the administration bond, and he relied upon the 16th section of the 1st article of the act concerning administration, which prohibits sheriffs, clerks and their deputies, and…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Davis v. EmmonsOregon Supreme Court · 1898
- State ex rel. Howell County v. FindleySupreme Court of Missouri · 1890