Mackey v. Basil
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the Jackson Circuit Court. — Hon. R. H. Field, Judge. Instruction, numbered 1, as given by the court of its own motion, is erroneous. The filling of a blank by the agent of the borrower for a larger amount than intended does not absolutely invalidate the instrument. A recovery may be bad for the amount actually due. Johnson v. Blasdale, 1 S. & M. 17; 40 Am.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Jackson Circuit Court. — Hon. R. H. Field, Judge. Instruction, numbered 1, as given by the court of its own motion, is erroneous. The filling of a blank by the agent of the borrower for a larger amount than intended does not absolutely invalidate the instrument. A recovery may be bad for the amount actually due. Johnson v. Blasdale, 1 S. & M. 17; 40 Am. Dec. 85. A much more serious defect in the instruction, however, is the failure to limit its effect, should the jury find that the bolder of the paper knew nothing of its being left blank. The testimony brought out by…
1Opinion of the CourtSmith, P. J.
— This was an action of replevin. The defendants executed and delivered to the Missouri Mortgage Loan Company, a corporation, as the agent for the plaintiff, a mortgage on the property in controversy to secure the payment of a promissory note. The amount was left blank in both mortgage and note. It is conceded these blanks were subsequently filled by the mortgage loan company, by inserting $28 therein. There was evidence tending to prove that the defendants applied for and obtained $10, and for which they were to give their note and the mortgage for $14. That the $4, the difference between…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- National Bank v. NickellMissouri Court of Appeals · 1889
- Washington Savings Bank v. EckySupreme Court of Missouri · 1873
3Cited by4 opinions
- Montgomery v. DresherNebraska Supreme Court · 1912
- New England Loan & Trust Co. v. BrownMissouri Court of Appeals · 1894
- Roe v. Town Mutual Fire InsuranceMissouri Court of Appeals · 1899
- Gribble v. EverettMissouri Court of Appeals · 1903