Boatmen's Bank v. St. Louis Union Trust Co.
| Decision Date | 05 July 1918 |
| Docket Number | No. 20432.,20432. |
| Citation | 205 S.W. 629 |
| Parties | BOATMEN'S BANK v. ST. LOUIS UNION TRUST CO. et al. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; John W. Calhoun, Judge.
Action by the Boatmen's Bank against the St. Louis Union Trust Company and Rosalie G. McRee, executors of the last will of W. G. Melee, deceased. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal. Affirmed.
Geo. V. Reynolds and. F. J. Hoffmeister, both of St. Louis, for appellants. Sears Lehmann and Lehmann & Lehmann, all of St. Louis, for respondent.
Appellants are executors of the will of W. G. McRee, deceased. The appeal is from a judgment against the estate of McRee upon three notes. The first of these is a demand note for $8,500, dated January 1, 1897; the second, a demand note, for $10,000, dated May 23, 1905; and the third is a note for $14,000, dated August 2, 1912, due six months after date. In each of these the rate of interest prescribed is 6 per cent., and on each payments had been made. Interest on the demand notes was paid regularly until 1912. The $8,500 note was signed by Luther H. Conn and W. G. McRee. The $10,000 note was signed by the Tiger Tail Mill & Land Company and indorsed by W. G. Melee. The $14,000 note was signed by the same corporation and indorsed by Conn and W. G. Melee. Demand and protest proved.
I. On the $8,500 and $10,000 notes appeared memoranda stamped as follows: Whether this appeared on the margin is not made clear. Appellants contend this constituted an alteration invalidating the note. The rule concerning the effect of alterations is not in dispute. The notes are demand notes. The evidence tends to show Melee was a large stockholder in respondent bank and familiar with its methods generally, and with its handling of these notes, particularly; that the Interest rate on demand notes were advanced in the fall of 1907; that this was done by notifying the parties liable in advance of the raise in rate; that the parties had the alternative of paying off the note, and thus avoiding the increased interest; that McRee knew of these things; that the notes were not paid, but the interest was, and also paid after the rate was, in February, 1908, reduced; that it was regularly paid until in 1912, about the time of McRee's death; that after 1907 McRee frequently spoke of the notes and talked of paying them; some payments of interest, the evidence tends to show, he made in person. The court submitted the question of fact whether the change in the interest rate was made with the knowledge or consent of McRee or ratified by him. Appellants' instructions presented this whole question. The jury found the fact for the respondent. The evidence warranted such a finding. In these circumstances the point must be ruled against appellants.
II. The history of the $14,000 note is relevant. In 1906 respondent held a note of Mr. and Mrs. Bagby, upon which Luther Conn and W. G. McRee were indorsers. The Bagbys, Conn, Richards, and Hubbard owned stock in the Tiger Tail Mill & Land Company. In July, 1906, the Bagbys and Conn executed a contract whereby the Bagbys sold Conn all their stock in that company and all claims they had against the company, and Conn agreed to secure the release of Joanna L. Bagby from liability as indorser on notes of the company, aggregating $105,500, and also from liability on the $14,000 note signed by her and held by respondent bank. There were other provisions not relevant to this case. Hubbard was president of the Tiger Tail Mill & Land Company and cashier of respondent bank. A few days after the execution of the contract mentioned, Hubbard wrote McRee (then temporarily out of the city) inclosing a note for $14,000 signed by the Tiger Tail Mill & Land Company and indorsed by Conn, and asked McRee to indorse this note for the purpose of taking up the Bagby $14,000 note, upon which also McRee was indorser....
To continue reading
Request your trial