Veney v. Furth
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. Daniel D. Fisher, Judge. (1) Defendant Gould was a bona fide bolder for value, (a) An extension of time, even for a single day, is a valuable consideration. Loewen v. Forsee, 137 Mo. 29; Allen v. Harris, 79 Mo.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. Daniel D. Fisher, Judge. (1) Defendant Gould was a bona fide bolder for value, (a) An extension of time, even for a single day, is a valuable consideration. Loewen v. Forsee, 137 Mo. 29; Allen v. Harris, 79 Mo. App. 490; Deere v. Marsden, 88 Mo. 512; Smith v. Norman, 19 Ohio St. 148; Powers v. Woolfolk, 111 S. W. 1187. (b) Security for a debt given after the debt was contracted but in pursuance of a prior or contemporaneous agreement constitutes tbe receiver a bolder for value. Miller v. Boykin, 70 Ala. 469; Boykin v. Bank, 72 Ala. 263; Marks…
1Opinion of the CourtReynolds, P. J.
(after stating the facts). — As this is a suit in equity we, an appellate court, as in duty hound, have gone over all the testimony in it, as abstracted by counsel for the appellants, and have set out the material parts of it. While in such a suit we are to weigh the testimony ourselves and determine the cause from our conclusions on that testimony, and are not bound by the finding on the evidence which has been made by the trial court, it is and always has been an established rule in all our appellate courts, to pay great deference to the conclusion arrived at by the trial judge on the…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Whelan v. ReillySupreme Court of Missouri · 1876
- Carroll v. United Railways Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1911
- Kline v. VogelSupreme Court of Missouri · 1886
- Ailey v. BurnettSupreme Court of Missouri · 1896
3Cited by3 opinions
- Githens v. Butler CountySupreme Court of Missouri · 1942
- Cannon v. BingmanMissouri Court of Appeals · 1962
- Citizens' Bank v. HeywardSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1925