Bobb v. Taylor

• Decision Date: 16 March 1917
• Docket Number: No. 18158.,18158.
• Citation: 193 S.W. 800
• Parties: BOBB v. TAYLOR.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

193 S.W. 800

BOBB v. TAYLOR.

No. 18158.

Supreme Court of Missouri. Division No. 2.

March 16, 1917.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court, James E. Withrow, Judge.

Suit on a note by Clara P. Bobb against Lucy G. Taylor. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

On June 12, 1884, the defendant executed to John H. Bobb a promissory note for $30,000, due a year after its date at 6 per cent. per annum, and at the same time she executed a deed of trust on certain real estate in the city of St. Louis to secure that note. On September 17, 1884, said Bobb married this plaintiff, and on October 1, 1884, he assigned to her said note. He died on March 10, 1910, leaving the plaintiff as his widow. On June 26, 1912, the same day on which this suit was begun, the plaintiff herein began a separate suit in the circuit court of said city to foreclose said deed of trust. In that suit various issues of fact were joined as to whether said note was barred by the statute of limitations, whether the plaintiff was the owner of the note, whether there was any consideration for the execution of the note, and whether the note had become void by reason of an alleged forged indorsement on it. On March 17, 1913, on a trial of said other case, the issues therein were found in favor of the defendant and judgment rendered accordingly, from which the plaintiff duly prosecuted her appeal to this court, where, on March 13, 1916, the said judgment was reversed and the cause remanded in an opinion reported in 184 S. W. 1028. It is conceded that no appeal bond was filed in that case on such appeal. There is no showing that there was any supersedeas of that judgment pending that appeal. The pleadings in this case raise the same issues as were joined in the other case. The answer in this case, in addition to the other grounds of defense, alleges the rendition of the judgment in the other case, and that the issues were the same in both cases, and enters a plea of res judicata. The reply herein admits the rendition of said judgment, and that it involved the same issues, and alleges the fact of the allowance of the appeal from such judgment. There was a motion by defendant for a judgment on the pleadings herein, which was sustained, and judgment was rendered for the defendant on December 2, 1913, prior to the reversal of the judgment in the other case by this court.

T. J. Rowe, of St. Louis, for appellant. S. T. G. Smith and Henry A. Baker, both of St. Louis, for respondent.

...