Beidman v. Gray
| Decision Date | 31 October 1864 |
| Citation | 35 Mo. 282 |
| Parties | JOHN W. BEIDMAN, Respondent, v. GEORGE GRAY et al., Appellants. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Clark Circuit Court.
Rush & Rutherford, for appellants.
The inquiry being between original parties to the note, parol evidence was admissible to explain the manner in which the names of the appellants were endorsed upon the note. If they endorsed their names on a note under an agreement with the plaintiff, that agreement fixed their liability and they were not liable beyond it. (Lewis v. Harvey, 18 Mo. 74; Schneider v. Schiffman, 20 Mo. 571; Davis v. Francisco, 11 Mo. 272.)
Greenfield & Givens, for respondent.
This is a suit upon a negotiable note made by V. D. Burch to the plaintiff, upon the back of which note the defendants wrote their names. The petition charges them as makers of the note. They answered, and at the trial offered to prove that they did not execute or sign said note as makers thereof, but that they signed their names upon the back of said note under an express agreement between plaintiff and themselves that they were not to be liable for the payment of said note, only as subsequent endorsers, and should not be liable or called upon for the payment of said note until the plaintiff, or the holder of said note, should first have exhausted his remedy against Burch, the maker and payer, &c.
This evidence was rejected and judgment given for plaintiff, from which the defendants appealed. The court erred in rejecting the evidence. It was competent for the defendants to show that they signed as endorsers and not as makers. (Lewis v. Harvey, 18 Mo. 74; Schneider v. Schiffman, 20 Mo. 571.)
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kingman and Company v. Cornell-Tebbetts Machine and Buggy Company
...to prove the character and extent of the undertaking and obligation, whether as joint maker, indorser, surety or guarantor. [Beidman v. Gray, 35 Mo. 282; Seymour Farrell, 51 Mo. 95; Semple v. Turner, 65 Mo. 696.] But such parol evidence is not admissible when the note is in the hands of an ......
-
Kingman & Co. v. Cornell-Tebbetts Machine & Buggy Co.
...to prove the character and extent of the undertaking and obligation, — whether as joint maker, indorser, surety, or guarantor. Beidman v. Gray, 35 Mo. 282; Seymour v. Farrell, 51 Mo. 95; Semple v. Turner, 65 Mo. But such parol evidence is not admissible when the note is in the hands of an i......
-
Butler v. Gambs
...N. Y. 478; Hanney v. Pell, 3 E. D. Smith (N. Y.), 432; Edw. on Ref. 152; Lewis v. Harvey, 18 Mo. 74; Baker v. Black, 30 Mo. 225; Beidman v. Gray, 35 Mo. 282; Deitz v. Corwin, 35 Mo. 376; Buckner v. Liebig et al., 38 Mo. 188; Bunce v. Beck, 43 Mo. 266; Western Benevolent Assn. v. Wolff, 45 M......
-
Herrick v. Edwards
... ... J. Edwards ... was entirely relevant and proper. Schneider v ... Schiffmann, 20 Mo. 571; Beidman v. Gray, 35 Mo ... 282; Kuntz v. Temple, 48 Mo. 71; Seymour v ... Farrell, 51 Mo. 95; Mammon v. Hartman, 51 Mo ... 168; Cahn v. Dutton, 60 Mo ... ...