Mechanics' Bank v. Wright
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Benton Circuit Court. I. Parol testimony was admissible to show that Ballow was the only principal, and that the defendants were securities. (Poster vs. Wallace, 2 Mo., 231; Garret vs. Ferguson’s Admr. 9 Mo., 125.) II. There was a general settlement between the Bank and Ballow, and a balance found due to Ballow.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Benton Circuit Court. I. Parol testimony was admissible to show that Ballow was the only principal, and that the defendants were securities. (Poster vs. Wallace, 2 Mo., 231; Garret vs. Ferguson’s Admr. 9 Mo., 125.) II. There was a general settlement between the Bank and Ballow, and a balance found due to Ballow. There is a legal presumption that a note made by Ballow and others, past due at the time of the settlement, was taken into consideration and paid, unless it appears that it was expressly excepted therefrom. I. All' the makers of the note sued on were equally liable to the…
1Opinion of the CourtWagner, Judge
This was a suit instituted upon a promissory note executed by DeWitt O. Ballow, together with the defendants and one Kays. Ballow died previous to the bringing of the action, and the plaintiffs compromised with Kays and released him, and the defendants were alone sued.- The defendants, as a part of their defense, set up in their answer, that Ballow was the principal in the note and alone received the benefits thereof, and that the other signers were mere securities, and that' this fact was known to the plaintiffs when the note was made. It was also alleged that Ballow was attorney for the…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Long v. ShaferMissouri Court of Appeals · 1914
- Smith v. FreylerMontana Supreme Court · 1882
- Ashbrook v. LetcherMissouri Court of Appeals · 1890
- Banister v. KentonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1891
- Reynolds v. SchadeMissouri Court of Appeals · 1908
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.