Holmes v. Fresh
Supreme Court of Missouri
APPEAL from Marion Circuit Court. In Chancery. POINTS AND AUTHORITIES. 1. The answer denies that the transaction was a loan of money, and security for its repayment, and the proof is not sufficient to establish the fact against the denial of the answer and the deed of the defendant. Thompson vs. Patton, 5Littells’ Rep. 74; Clason vs. Morris, 10 John! Rep. 541; Flint vs. Sheldon, 13 Mass. Rep. 445; Stackpole vs. Arnold, 11 Mass.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from Marion Circuit Court. In Chancery. POINTS AND AUTHORITIES. 1. The answer denies that the transaction was a loan of money, and security for its repayment, and the proof is not sufficient to establish the fact against the denial of the answer and the deed of the defendant. Thompson vs. Patton, 5Littells’ Rep. 74; Clason vs. Morris, 10 John! Rep. 541; Flint vs. Sheldon, 13 Mass. Rep. 445; Stackpole vs. Arnold, 11 Mass. Rep. 27; Aborn vs. Burnett, 3 Blackford’s Rep. 102; 1 Phillips’ Ev. 567-571. 2. The bill does not seek to set aside the bill of sale upon the ground of fraud and…
1Opinion of the Court
Scott; J.,
delivered the opinion of the court.
This was a bill in chancery brought by Fresh against Holmes and others, in which it is alleged that Holmes became an endorser in bank for Fresh for the sum of $1000. Holmes was secured against all liability by reason of his endors'ement, by a deed of trust on all the complainant’s land in Lewis county. Afterwards, in March, 1840, Fresh being pressed with executions, issued on judgments whose liens were anterior to the deed of trust, which had been levied on the lands con*203veyed by the trust deed, solicited from Holmes a loan of a sum of money…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Hepburn and Dundas's Heirs v. Dunlop & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1816
3Cited by2 opinions
- Cobb v. DaySupreme Court of Missouri · 1891
- Reeder v. GorsuchSupreme Court of Kansas · 1895