Fenwick v. Bowling
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the Barton Circuit Cowl. — Hon. D. P. Stratton, Judge. (1) Note should have been filed, and motion to dismiss was the proper remedy. R. S. 1889, sec. 2088; AclmW v. Murdock, 38 Mo. 224; Rotlnvell v. Morgan, 37 Mo. 107; Christie v. RaiVroad, 94 Mo. 456; Railroad v. Knudson, 62 Mo. 569. (2) Testimony should have been admitted on the counterclaim. First. Fraud was circumstantially stated, and that was sufficient.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Barton Circuit Cowl. — Hon. D. P. Stratton, Judge. (1) Note should have been filed, and motion to dismiss was the proper remedy. R. S. 1889, sec. 2088; AclmW v. Murdock, 38 Mo. 224; Rotlnvell v. Morgan, 37 Mo. 107; Christie v. RaiVroad, 94 Mo. 456; Railroad v. Knudson, 62 Mo. 569. (2) Testimony should have been admitted on the counterclaim. First. Fraud was circumstantially stated, and that was sufficient. Morehead v. Fades, 3 Bush, 121; 1 Story’s Equity [12 Ed.] sec. 203; McBeth v. Craddock, 28 Mo. App. 392; Wood v. Fvans, 43 Mo. App. 230; 3 Greenleaf on Evidence [6 Ed.] sec.…
1Opinion of the CourtSmith, P. J.
— This was a suit on a promissory note. The answer admitted the execution of the note *520and pleaded a failure of consideration. The replication alleged a settlement as to the matters embraced in the defendant’s answer. There was a trial and judgment for plaintiff, and the defendant has appealed.
I. The appealing defendant complains of the action of the trial court in refusing to dismiss the plaintiff’s action. It appears the note sued on was not attached to the petition filed, although it was so stated therein. The petition stated a perfect cause of action on the note. The answer admitted its…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Brown v. WeldonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1889
- Dulaney v. RogersSupreme Court of Missouri · 1876
- Caldwell v. HenrySupreme Court of Missouri · 1882
- Peers v. Davis' AdministratorsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1859
- McBeth v. CraddockMissouri Court of Appeals · 1887
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Hartford Fire Insurance v. BleedornMissouri Court of Appeals · 1939
- International Harvester Co. of America v. AdamsSupreme Court of Georgia · 1910
- Hopkins v. Modern Woodmen of AmericaMissouri Court of Appeals · 1902
- Heimann v. Hatcher Mercantile Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1904
- Live Stock Remedy Co. v. WhiteCourt of Appeals of Kansas · 1901