Emmert v. Meyer
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the Holt Circuit Court. — Hon. Cyeus A. Anthony, Judge. (1) If the plaintiff failed to demur to the new matter set up in the answer, and replied to the same, thereby putting the new matter in issue, he certainly should not be allowed on the trial to ignore that issue, thereby misleading the defendant. In any event, after the plaintiff introduced the note in evidence, the defendant then had the right to show failure of consideration.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Holt Circuit Court. — Hon. Cyeus A. Anthony, Judge. (1) If the plaintiff failed to demur to the new matter set up in the answer, and replied to the same, thereby putting the new matter in issue, he certainly should not be allowed on the trial to ignore that issue, thereby misleading the defendant. In any event, after the plaintiff introduced the note in evidence, the defendant then had the right to show failure of consideration. Section. 2090, Revised Statutes, 1889, plainly gives this right. (2) The note introduced in evidence is the foundation of the action, and being…
1Opinion of the CourtG-ill, J.
This suit is on a note. The petition alleges: “That the defendant on the second day of May, 1893, by his negotiable, promissory note of that date, by him duly executed at the city of Mound City, in the state of Missouri, promised, for value received, to pay Miller & McPherson, or order, in one year after date thereof ($107.50) one hundred and seven dollars and fifty cents; that thereupon and before the maturity of said note, said Miller & McPherson indorsed the same in writing across the back thereof, and delivered the same to the plaintiff for value, whereby the plaintiff became the owner of…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Merrill v. Central Trust Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1891
3Cited by2 opinions
- Green v. WilkieSupreme Court of Iowa · 1896
- First National Bank v. BennettMissouri Court of Appeals · 1905