Church v. Fagin
Supreme Court of Missouri
I. The defendant was entitled to give'in evidence to the jury the fact that he had large means, and owned property subject to execution at all times between the time of the making of the contract and the institution of this suit.
Read the full summary
I. The defendant was entitled to give'in evidence to the jury the fact that he had large means, and owned property subject to execution at all times between the time of the making of the contract and the institution of this suit. As there were only two witnesses (who flatly contradicted each other upon the question whether the defendant owed the alleged debt to the plaintiffs), and as the plaintiffs failed to urge their demand for a period exceeding four years, it became important to show that the defendant was always able to respond, that he had means to respond, to any debt; that plaintiffs…
1Opinion of the CourtBaker, Judge
This is an action on an account for $146.70, as a balance due on 4,009 bushels of wheat, which the plaintiffs claim to have sold and delivered to the defendant about the 15th day of September, 1863, at one dollar and fourteen cents per bushel. The defendant, in his answer, denies that anything is due on an account, and, by way of set-off, claims that the plaintiffs, about the 14th day of September, 1863, entered into a contract with him to deliver to him, in St. Louis, 5,000 bushels of wheat, at one dollar and fourteen cents per bushel, within two weeks thereafter; that the wheat delivered by…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Hull v. CooperMissouri Court of Appeals · 1889
- Estes v. FryMissouri Court of Appeals · 1886
- Blum v. Versteeg Grant Shoe Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1898