Dorsey v. Hagard ex rel. Wathen
Supreme Court of Missouri
t The question presented fot the consideration of this; «ourt is,.did the circuit court err in this proceeding;- and* iin the judgment given for plaintiff? On the affirmative •side of this issue, on the part .of defendant, we say that .the circuit court did err, for the following reasons: First, the note -in suit was given in consideration of a security debt, and it.is .proved that that debt was-paid; and the court erred in receiving parol evidence to prove a different…
Read the full summary
t The question presented fot the consideration of this; «ourt is,.did the circuit court err in this proceeding;- and* iin the judgment given for plaintiff? On the affirmative •side of this issue, on the part .of defendant, we say that .the circuit court did err, for the following reasons: First, the note -in suit was given in consideration of a security debt, and it.is .proved that that debt was-paid; and the court erred in receiving parol evidence to prove a different consideration than .-that .expressed in the note itself. In the second place,.from the plaintiff’s-own evidence,, the note in…
1Opinion of the Court
Edwards, Judge,
delivered the expinion of the court.
This was an appeal from a justice of the peace to the circuit court-of Perry county. In the circuit court, Wa-then had judgment for fifteen dollars .debt, two dollars and forty cents damages and costs. Dorsey moved for a new trial, and the court overruledthe motion, and Dorsey brings the case here by writ of -error. On the trial dn the circuit court, the plaintiff gave in evidence the fol-■Jowing note/.
“I promise to pay Austin Hagard the amount I ,am bound .for as security for J. Wathen. November 29, 1834. IR. S. DORSEY.” .
The defendant then…
2Cited by1 opinion
- People Ex Rel. Ellison v. . LavinNew York Court of Appeals · 1904