DeBuhr v. Thompson
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from Atchison Circuit Court. — No». William 0. Ellison, Judge. (1) No replication was filed by plaintiff in this case, and hence, the new matter set up in defendant’s answer was by'force of law admitted, and entitled the defendant to a judgment. Defendant raises this point in his motion for a new trial. Mullins v. Martins, 23 Mo.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Atchison Circuit Court. — No». William 0. Ellison, Judge. (1) No replication was filed by plaintiff in this case, and hence, the new matter set up in defendant’s answer was by'force of law admitted, and entitled the defendant to a judgment. Defendant raises this point in his motion for a new trial. Mullins v. Martins, 23 Mo. App. 543, R. S. 1899, sec. 607. (2) We wish to call special attention to section 897, Revised Statutes 1899. Under tbe common law, in order to compound a debt, the courts bold that there must be a consideration either expressed or implied to do this. What was…
1Opinion of the CourtBroaddus, P. J.
This is an action for debt. The facts are as follows: On and prior to the 8th day of September, 1906, the defendants, Thompson and Maxwell, were doing business as partners at Phelps City in Atchi-son county, on which day the plaintiff sold to them as such partnership a large quantity of com for the sum of $601.04, for which amount they gave her a check on the Citizens National Bank of Atchison county. The plaintiff delayed collecting the sum called for in the check for several months, but she finally presented it to the Farmers Bank which took the check, stamped it paid, and presented it to…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Vigeant v. Fidelity National Bank & Trust Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1945
- Monett State Bank v. RathersSupreme Court of Missouri · 1927