5 Mo.App. 56 (Mo.App. 1878), MacDonald v. Wagner

Citation:5 Mo.App. 56
Opinion Judge:BAKEWELL, J.
Party Name:R. S. MACDONALD, Respondent, v. CHARLES WAGNER, Appellant.
Attorney:J. D. JOHNSON, for appellant, C. C. SIMMONS, for respondent,
Case Date:January 02, 1878
Court:Court of Appeals of Missouri

Page 56

5 Mo.App. 56 (Mo.App. 1878)

R. S. MACDONALD, Respondent,



Court of Appeals of Missouri, St. Louis.

January 2, 1878

A wife instituted suit for divorce, and her attorney, acting as peace-maker, at the request of the husband, effected a reconciliation between the parties, and persuaded the wife to dismiss the suit; the husband then executed to the attorney his note, part of the consideration therefor being for services rendered to the wife in the divorce suit, and part for services rendered to the husband in compromising the same. Held, in an action on the note by the payee against the maker, that no recovery could be had on the note, the consideration therefor being void in so far as it was for services rendered to the husband.

APPEAL from St. Louis Circuit Court.

Reversed and remanded.

J. D. JOHNSON, for appellant, cited: Sherwood v. Railroad Co., 15 Barb. 652; Herrick v. Catley, 1 Daly 512; Id., 30 How. Pr. 208; 1 Pars. on Con. 457; Peltz v. Long, 40 Mo. 539.

C. C. SIMMONS, for respondent, cited: 2 Bishop's Mar. & Div., secs. 387-393; Waters v. Waters, 49 Mo. 385; Coats v. Robinson, 10 Mo. 757; 23 Mo. 457; 8 Johns. 29; 1 Chitty on Con. 28, 35, 46, 62, 70; 34 Mo. 513.



This was an action on a promissory note for $125, made by defendant to the order of plaintiff. Plaintiff testified, on his own behalf, that he was an attorney-at-law, and was employed by defendant's wife to commence an action of divorce against her husband; that the parties to that suit became reconciled during its progress, in a measure through his offices as peace-maker; that, at the instance of the husband, he persuaded the wife to dismiss the suit, and that it was dismissed by her; and that after the suit was dismissed, the note was executed by defendant, " for services rendered to Mrs. Wagner in the divorce case, and for services rendered to Mr. Wagner, defendant in that case, and for services rendered in his behalf in settling the case between himself and his wife." The plaintiff further testified, that in bringing about a reconciliation he was acting for both; that he considered it the duty of the attorney in a divorce suit to effect a reconciliation if he can; and that he could not say how much of the consideration of the note was for services to the husband, and how much for services to the wife. After the...

To continue reading