Holmes v. Hill
Supreme Court of Missouri
Error to St. Louis Court of Common Pleas. 1. The first, second, third, fifth and sixth instructions asked by the plaintiff should have been given. 2 Gxeenl. Ev. §302. 5 Dane’s Abr. 373, (ch. 158, §7 to 13, §22.) 2 Bae. Abr. 171, tit. Duress, A, and note. Com. Dig. tit. Pleader, 2 W, 19. Ohitty on Con. 206-7 and notes. 1 Saund.
Read the full summary
Error to St. Louis Court of Common Pleas. 1. The first, second, third, fifth and sixth instructions asked by the plaintiff should have been given. 2 Gxeenl. Ev. §302. 5 Dane’s Abr. 373, (ch. 158, §7 to 13, §22.) 2 Bae. Abr. 171, tit. Duress, A, and note. Com. Dig. tit. Pleader, 2 W, 19. Ohitty on Con. 206-7 and notes. 1 Saund. Plead, and Ev. 44. Watkins v. Baird, 6 Mass. 711. Waterman v. Barrett, 4 Harr. 311. Where the suit is upon regular legal process, founded upon real demands, though for a larger amount than the plaintiff' may finally succeed in recovering, and though the defendant may…
1Opinion of the CourtGamble, Judge
Holmes brought his action of assumpsit against Hill on a promissory note made by Hill, payable to Edward Bloomer and by him endorsed to Holmes. Hill pleaded that the note had been obtained from him by Bloomer, the payee, by duress of imprisonment, and that Holmes, the endorsee, had notice of the fact. Although other special pleas were filed, upon which issues were formed, the defence relied upon was the duress.
In the evidence, it appeared that Hill, for several years prior to the making of the note, had contracts in relation to lumber with Robert and Edward Bloomer, and with a firm of J.…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Watkins v. BairdMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1810
3Cited by2 opinions
- Holtschneider v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1904
- Marre v. MarreMissouri Court of Appeals · 1914