Citizens' State Bank v. Pettit
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the Grundy Circuit Court. — Hon. P. O. Stepp, Judge. (1) The evidence shows that the contract set forth in defendants’ answer, the only contract executed by defendants, is a contract of indemnity; under the law, the sum of $1,700 therein mentioned is a penalty. This being true, there could not be a legal recovery on this contract, under any circumstances, for any sum in excess of the damage sustained by .N. H. Jaynes.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Grundy Circuit Court. — Hon. P. O. Stepp, Judge. (1) The evidence shows that the contract set forth in defendants’ answer, the only contract executed by defendants, is a contract of indemnity; under the law, the sum of $1,700 therein mentioned is a penalty. This being true, there could not be a legal recovery on this contract, under any circumstances, for any sum in excess of the damage sustained by .N. H. Jaynes. The $650 paid by D. S. Hazen would, under any circumstances, have to be deducted from any recovery on this contract. Ewing v. Reilly, 34 Mo. 113; May v. Crawford,…
1Opinion of the CourtSmith, P. J.
— The defendants executed to one Jaynes their promissory note negotiable in form for seventeen hundred dollars, payable three years after the date thereof, which was supplemented with an agreement of even date therewith, which was to the effect following:
“It is agreed and mutually understood that this note, $1,Y00, and interest hereto attached is to be returned to the makers without collection when the deed of trust is released by said G. M. Pettit and Abe and Howard Pettit as sureties, said deed of trust is now on lands known as E. A. Hazen lands northeast of Trenton, Mo., north of Q. O. &…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Garth v. CaldwellSupreme Court of Missouri · 1880
- Heim v. VogelSupreme Court of Missouri · 1879
- May v. CrawfordSupreme Court of Missouri · 1899
- Nelson v. BrownSupreme Court of Missouri · 1897
- Orrick v. DurhamSupreme Court of Missouri · 1883
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Hartog v. SieglerMissouri Court of Appeals · 1981
- Dorrell v. SparksMissouri Court of Appeals · 1910