Wislizenus v. O'Fallon
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Jefferson Circuit Court. — How. Johw L. Thomas, Judge. The inducement which caused the defendant to give Ms note to John O’Fallon was only a collateral issue. The main and only question of fact in the case, viz: what was the consideration of the note, remains undisputed, and is embodied in the declarations of law asked by defendant. The law should have been declared as asked by defendant and judgment rendered for him.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Jefferson Circuit Court. — How. Johw L. Thomas, Judge. The inducement which caused the defendant to give Ms note to John O’Fallon was only a collateral issue. The main and only question of fact in the case, viz: what was the consideration of the note, remains undisputed, and is embodied in the declarations of law asked by defendant. The law should have been declared as asked by defendant and judgment rendered for him. Edwards on Bills and Notes [3 Ed.] secs. 451, 467. (1) The court, sitting as a jury, found the issues of fact in plaintiff’s favor, and those findings are supported…
1Opinion of the CourtBrace, J.
This is an action on a promissory note, executed by defendant in favor of John O’Fallon, dated January 21, 1875, payable six months after date, for the sum of $4,122.66, and assigned by him after maturity to the plaintiff. The defendant’s answer is as follows : “He admits the execution and delivery of' the note sued on, but further answering and for defence, defendant avers that he owed said John O’Fallon nothing, but that said note was made and delivered to John O’Fallon (the payee thereof) for the special purpose of using and employing the same in effecting a settlement of a certain…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Nelson v. DiffenderfferMissouri Court of Appeals · 1914
- England v. HouserMissouri Court of Appeals · 1914
- Barnard State Bank v. FeslerMissouri Court of Appeals · 1901
- Citizens Bank v. MartinMissouri Court of Appeals · 1913
- Montgomery v. SchwaldMissouri Court of Appeals · 1914