Baker v. Farris
| Decision Date | 31 October 1875 |
| Parties | JOHN F. BAKER, et al., Appellants, v. HARRISON FARRIS, Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Jackson Special Law and Equity Court.
J. E. Havens, for Appellant, cited Claflin vs. McDonough, 33 Mo., 412; Cheltenham Fire Brick Co. vs. Cook, 44 Mo., 40; Steuben Co. Bank vs. Matthewson, 5 Hill., 249; Ward vs. Allen, 2 Metc. Mass., 53.
This was an action originally brought before a Justice of the Peace, where the judgment was for the defendant. The plaintiffs then appealed. The defense made in both courts was, that the note was given without any consideration; that it was executed to plaintiffs for a debt due by defendant's son, in which they claimed that he had obtained from them a wagon under false pretences, and they threatened to prosecute him criminally, unless the defendant would assume the liability; that to prevent this, defendant made the note, and plaintiffs forbore to prosecute. This was denied by the plaintiffs, but the evidence was simply conflicting, and we cannot weigh it. At the trial, the plaintiffs asked for no instructions, and the court gave two declarations of law for the defendant, and then found the issues for him.
The first simply declared that if it should be found from the evidence that no consideration moved between the plaintiffs and defendant, for the note sued on, then the plaintiffs could not recover. To that declaration there can be no objection whatever. It simply submitted the question as a plain one of fact, whether there was any consideration or not, and that was a matter dependent wholly upon evidence.
The next instruction stated that if it was found from the evidence that the note sued on was given by the defendant for the purpose of saving (his son) the said John T. Farris from arrest or imprisonment, or for the purpose of compromising a charge of obtaining goods under false pretenses, then preferred, or about to be preferred, or threatened to be preferred, by the payers of said note, or either, against John T. Farris, then the consideration of said note was illegal. A note given for the purpose of defeating the execution of the criminal law, or for compounding a felony, is against public policy and void. But it is said that where no prosecution has been instituted it is necessary to allege the fact that a crime has been committed, and that a party taking an obligation in consideration of forbearance to initiate prosecution, had...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mississippi Valley Trust Company v. Begley
...is therefore void. Sumner v. Summers, 54 Mo. 343; Sprague v. Rooney, 104 Mo. 358; Cheltneham Fire Brick Co. v. Cook, 44 Mo. 36; Baker v. Farris, 61 Mo. 389; McCoy Green, 83 Mo. 632; Janis v. Roentgen, 52 Mo.App. 117; Melone v. Fidelity Co., 71 Mo.App. 8; Met. Land Co. v. Manning, 98 Mo.App.......
-
Mississippi Valley Trust Co. v. Begley
...358, 16 S. W. 505; Bell v. Campbell, 123 Mo. 1, 25 S. W. 359, 5 Am. St. Rep. 505; Cheltenham Fire-Brick Co. v. Cook, 44 Mo. 29; Baker v. Farris, 61 Mo. 389; McCoy v. Green, 83 Mo. 632; Janis v. Roentgen, 52 Mo. App. 117; Malone v. Fidelity & Casualty Co., 71 Mo. App. 1; Met. Land Co. v. Man......
-
Metropolitan Land Co. v. Manning
... ... contrary to public policy and absolutely void. Sumner v ... Summers, 54 Mo. 346; Baker v. Farris, 61 Mo ... 390; McCoy v. Green, 83 Mo. 626 ... Evans & Finley for respondent ... (1) ... ...
-
Turner v. Overall
...v. Edwards, 18 Mo.App. 677. A note given for the purpose of preventing a criminal prosecution is against public policy and void. Baker v. Ferris, 61 Mo. 389; McCoy Green, 83 Mo. 632; Sprigg v. Rooney, 104 Mo. 358; The Cheltenham Company v. Cook, 44 Mo. 39. It is not necessary that a crimina......