Legal Opinion

A. G. Danforth & Co. v. Crookshanks

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided January 11, 1897PublishedCited by 17 opinions

Error to the Linn Circuit Court. — Hon. W. W. Rucker, Judge. (1) Although the defendant did not return the horse to the plaintiffs, it was competent for him to interpose the defense of failure of consideration when sued on the note given for the purchase price of the horse. R. S. 1889, sec. 2090, p. 548; 1 MeQuillin’s Pleading and Practice, sec. 373. And defendant was not precluded from making such defense because he had made some payments on the note.

Read the full summary

Error to the Linn Circuit Court. — Hon. W. W. Rucker, Judge. (1) Although the defendant did not return the horse to the plaintiffs, it was competent for him to interpose the defense of failure of consideration when sued on the note given for the purchase price of the horse. R. S. 1889, sec. 2090, p. 548; 1 MeQuillin’s Pleading and Practice, sec. 373. And defendant was not precluded from making such defense because he had made some payments on the note. Werner v. O’Brien, 40 Mo. App. 483. (2) And the defendant’s evidence further shows that the horse was not then sound, but badly diseased in…

1Opinion of the CourtSmith, P. J.

Bconsideration-es: iXlMÍsfomd311 quéstion.ury This is an action on a promissory note for $1,000. The answer admitted the execution of the note and as a defense pleaded that the consideration for which said note was given was the purchase of a horse; that said horse was purchased be used as a trotting horse, which fact was well known to plaintiff at the time; that plaintiff well knowing the purposes for which defendant wanted said horse, *315and in order to induce him to make said purchase, falsely represented to the defendant that said horse was perfectly sound and fit for use as a trotting horse…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Brown v. WeldonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1889
  2. Werner v. O'BrienMissouri Court of Appeals · 1890
  3. Petersen v. Door, Sash & Lumber Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1883
  4. Reeves v. KellyMichigan Supreme Court · 1874

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. Turner v. Central Hardware Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1945
  2. St. Louis Brewing Ass'n v. McEnroeMissouri Court of Appeals · 1899
  3. Hill v. DillonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1913
  4. Huntington v. LombardWashington Supreme Court · 1900
  5. Kessler v. ClayesMissouri Court of Appeals · 1910

12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API