Brownlee v. Arnold
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Linn Circuit Court. The note and deed of trust were parts of the same contract. (2 Pars. Oont., 5 ed., 653, and note with cases cited.) The note is in no way affected by the deed of trust, unless respondent chooses to proceed under the deed. He may elect as to remedy. (2 Am. Law Reg. [N. J.l, 650 : Young vs. Ruth, 55 Mo., 515.)
1Opinion of the CourtSherwood, Judge
On the sixth day of December, 1871, the defendant purchased of one Roberts a certain lot of ground in the town of Brookfield, for tlie sum of $3500, paying $1380 in cash, and executing four promissory notes for the residiie, due in one, two, three and four years from said date. To secure these notes a deed of trust of even date therewith was made on the land sold, which deed contained the express condition, that ■the notes should not become due, nor the deed of trust be foreclosed, until the fourth note should mature, viz: the sixth day of December, 1875. The first note, after its maturity,…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Hanford v. RogersNew York Supreme Court · 1851
3Cited by25 opinions
- San Antonio Real Estate Building & Loan Ass'n v. StewartTexas Supreme Court · 1901
- Owings v. McKenzieSupreme Court of Missouri · 1896
- Page v. FordOregon Supreme Court · 1913
- Noell v. GainesSupreme Court of Missouri · 1878
- City National Bank v. Goodloe-McClelland Commission Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1902
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.