Cases Determined by the St. Louis, Kansas City and Springfield Courts of Appeals of the State of Missouri Volume 125

Cases Determined by the St. Louis, Kansas City and Springfield Courts of Appeals of the State of Missouri Volume 125

List price: US$22.39

Currently unavailable

Add to wishlist

AbeBooks may have this title (opens in new window).

Try AbeBooks

Description

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1907 edition. Excerpt: ...account and no evidence of the payment of said note the court committed no error in giving the jury a peremptory instruction to find for the plaintiff. ELLISON, J.--This is an action on a promissory note. The trial court gave a peremptory instruction to find for the plaintiff and defendant has appealed. It appears that the payee of the note died and this action was instituted by his widow who, as such, became the owner of the note by administration in the probate court. The note was signed by defendant and Henry Stone. Stone was in reality a surety for defendant, 'though that does not appear on the face thereof. The defense was payment and that the consideration was intoxicating liquors sold in violation of law. At the trial defendant offered himself as a witness and he was excluded by the court on the ground of the payee being dead. But it was shown and urged upon the court that Stone was the deceased's clerk and agent and that he transacted the business with defendant which re sulted in the note, and that he also took the note for deceased. It thus appearing that Stone was deceased's agent who transacted the business and that he is also one of the obligors on the note (though not sued in this action) the question is, does that state of facts qualify the defendant payor? The unusual circumstance that Stone was the agent in obtaining the note upon which he himself appears as an obligor presents the only di-fliculty in the question. We have concluded that the trial court was right in excluding defendant as a witness. The general proposition that when one party to a contract is dead the other cannot testify appears by the terms of the statute itself. Sec. 4652, R. S. 1899. But the rule is well settled, by way of exception, that...show more

Product details

  • Paperback | 250 pages
  • 189 x 246 x 13mm | 454g
  • Rarebooksclub.com
  • English
  • Illustrations, black and white
  • 1236887271
  • 9781236887276