Oexner v. Loehr
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Now. Jas. E. WithrowJudge. (I) The burden of proof being on the defendant, the court erred in refusing to permit counsel for defendant to open and close tbe argument to the jury. Bank v. Metcalf, 29 Mo. App. 384; Bates v. Forclit, 89 Mo. 121; Beller v. Supreme Lodge, K. P., 66 Mo. App'. 499; Quarry Oo. v. Construction Co., 72 Mo. App. 350. (2) The court erred in giving instruction number 2, at the request of plaintiff.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Now. Jas. E. WithrowJudge. (I) The burden of proof being on the defendant, the court erred in refusing to permit counsel for defendant to open and close tbe argument to the jury. Bank v. Metcalf, 29 Mo. App. 384; Bates v. Forclit, 89 Mo. 121; Beller v. Supreme Lodge, K. P., 66 Mo. App'. 499; Quarry Oo. v. Construction Co., 72 Mo. App. 350. (2) The court erred in giving instruction number 2, at the request of plaintiff. Oexner v. Loebr, 117 Mo. App. 698. (3) The court erred in giving instruction number 4, at the request of plaintiff . The order of…
1Opinion of the CourtBland, P. J.
The action is on the following promissory note:
“$1,000. Belleville, Ills., Jan. 2, 1900.
“Olne year after date we promise to pay to the order of Michael Oexner, one thousand- dollars for value received, negotiable and payable without defalcation or discount, with interest from date at the rate of six per cent per annum.
(20 cent Rev. Stamp cancelled.) “Fred Loehr, Jr.
Wendeling Oexner.”
The note was indorsed on the back as follows:
“Emilie Donck, Josephin A. Loehr.”
*213The process was against Emilie Donck alone, who for answer, stated, in substance, that she did not sign the note as a maker but wrote…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Wade v. ScottSupreme Court of Missouri · 1842
- Corbitt v. MooneyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1900
- Oexner v. LoehrMissouri Court of Appeals · 1906