Matlock v. Bigbee
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Greene Circuit Court. I. The answer alleges a good defence to the action — a total failure of the consideration of the note sued on, by reason of the fraudulent representation of one of the heirs, one of the parties interested in said note. Representations are made as to material matters, which the answer charges have no existence whatever; and as to the quality, quantity and value of other material matters, which are likewise false and fraudulent.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Greene Circuit Court. I. The answer alleges a good defence to the action — a total failure of the consideration of the note sued on, by reason of the fraudulent representation of one of the heirs, one of the parties interested in said note. Representations are made as to material matters, which the answer charges have no existence whatever; and as to the quality, quantity and value of other material matters, which are likewise false and fraudulent. (Dyer v. Hargraw, 10 Yesey, Jr., 509-; Grant v. Mant, Cooper, 173; Lanice v. Hill, 25 Ala. 558; McPenan v. Taylor, 3 Cranch, 281;…
1Opinion of the CourtDryden, Judge
This was a suit on a note given by the appellants to- the respondent, for the purchase money of a tract of land sold to the appellants by the respondent, as sheriff of Greene county, under a judgment of the Greene Circuit Court, for partition among the heirs of Larkin Payne, deceased.
The appellants alleged in their answer to the petition the *355consideration, for which the note was given; that the sale was made by the respondent, as sheriff, in obedience to the judgment of the court; and that, at and béfore the sale, one Daniel Payne, one of the co-parceners and interested in the lands, “…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Cashion v. FainaSupreme Court of Missouri · 1870
- Stephens v. EllsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1877
- Wickersham v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1873
- Goings v. ShaferMissouri Court of Appeals · 1923