McDonald v. Hulse
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Platte Circuit Court. The opinion of the court sufficiently states the facts. insisted that the new bond was prima facie a payment of the trust debt and not a mere change of security, and therefore extinguished the trust debt. Hutchins v. Olcutt, 4 Verm. 550. Bank of Commonwealth v. Ray, 7 J. J. Marshall, 272. Curtis v. Ingham, 2 Verm. 290. If such was not the prima facie effect of the new bond, yet the evidence shows that this was the intention of the parties.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Platte Circuit Court. The opinion of the court sufficiently states the facts. insisted that the new bond was prima facie a payment of the trust debt and not a mere change of security, and therefore extinguished the trust debt. Hutchins v. Olcutt, 4 Verm. 550. Bank of Commonwealth v. Ray, 7 J. J. Marshall, 272. Curtis v. Ingham, 2 Verm. 290. If such was not the prima facie effect of the new bond, yet the evidence shows that this was the intention of the parties. At all events, the slave was only subject to the payment of the original debt, less the amount paid.
1Opinion of the CourtRxland, Judge
*504Iii this case, the following facts are found by the record.
McDonald, in August, 1847, filed a bill in the Platte Circuit Court against Hulse, Burnes and Thornburg, to the following effect:
Burnes being indebted to McDonald, by his bond of 2d February, 1841, payable at ten months, for $500, with six per cent, interest from date, did, by his deed of 4th October, 1842, convey two slaves to Thornburg, in trust to secure the payment of the debt, with authority to sell the property if the debt remained unpaid on 1st May, 1843.
Afterwards, on 2d June, 1845, the plaintiff, one of the slaves having…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Lippold v. HeldSupreme Court of Missouri · 1874
- Wiener v. PeacockMissouri Court of Appeals · 1888
- Bruegge v. BedardMissouri Court of Appeals · 1901
- Curtis v. BrowneMissouri Court of Appeals · 1895