Hume v. Hale
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from Scotland Circuit Court. — Eon. Ohas. D. Stewart, Judge. (1) The court should have sustained the objections of the plaintiff to the introduction of any evidence on the third defense plead as a counterclaim in the defendants’ answer. It stated no defense to the cause of action sued on. This error apparent on the face of the record may be raised in this court for the first time. Maginn v. Schmick, 127 Mo.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Scotland Circuit Court. — Eon. Ohas. D. Stewart, Judge. (1) The court should have sustained the objections of the plaintiff to the introduction of any evidence on the third defense plead as a counterclaim in the defendants’ answer. It stated no defense to the cause of action sued on. This error apparent on the face of the record may be raised in this court for the first time. Maginn v. Schmick, 127 Mo. App. 411; Railroad v. Car-lisle, 94 Mo. 166; Hughes v. Hood, 50 Mo. 350; Huiest v. Marx, 67 Mo. App. 419; Riley v. Hall, 158 Mass. 240 Mack v. Patchin, 42 N. Y. 167; Shoemaker v.…
1Opinion of the CourtGoode, J.
(after stating the facts). — 1. (a). Though the record in this case is long and numerous facts are essential to a right understanding of it, the *676points of law raised on the appeal are simple. Both sides proceeded on the theory that, even though the lease contract provided defendants might pay one of the notes given for each year’s rent in labor and making improvements on the farm, or in cash at their option, nevertheless all the notes were payable in cash; hence both of those declared on and which had been given for the rent for the year 1902, were payable in cash; and as it Avas only…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Smith v. GiegrichSupreme Court of Missouri · 1865
3Cited by1 opinion
- The University Bank v. MajorMissouri Court of Appeals · 1935