Briggs v. Glenn
| Decision Date | 31 August 1842 |
| Parties | BRIGGS AND BRIGGS v. GLENN AND BRYAN. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MONROE COUNTY.
CLARK, for Appellants.
a1
Glenn and Bryan commenced their suit in the Circuit Court against Ebenezer and David Briggs, and having obtained a judgment there against the two Briggs, they appealed. On the trial of the cause, the plaintiffs having given the bond in evidence, the defendants introduced as a witness one William B. Grant, who testified that Samuel Briggs, Robert West, and himself, on the 4th day of February, 1837, the day of the date of the bond sued on, purchased a store of the plaintiffs, for which they executed the said bond, and also a deed of trust conveying the store and legal estate of the witness to secure the payment thereof; that some time during the summer after the bond in question was executed, Samuel Briggs purchased out the interest of witness and West in the store, and by agreement was to release him to Glenn and Bryan; that Glenn informed witness, that he had agreed to release him as soon as Samuel Briggs gave the defendants, and others, as personal security; that some time in the fall, after the bond sued on was executed, the witness saw James R. Abernathy, in the presence of Glenn, erase the name of witness from the bond sued upon; that neither of the defendants were present. Witness is confident the name of Ebenezer Briggs was to the bond when the witness' name was erased, and he believes that David A. Briggs' name was also to it, but is not certain.
Robert West stated that his name was signed to this bond originally as one of the obligors; that it was afterwards erased from it.
The plaintiffs then introduced James R. Abernathy as a witness, who testified that Samuel Briggs, Glenn, and Bryan informed him that Samuel Briggs had purchased out Grant's intercst in the store, for which the bond in this case was given, also a deed of trust upon Grant's real estate and the store had been given; that Samuel Briggs had agreed to release Grant and West, upon the two defendants in this cause, with others, signing the bond as personal security; that the witness went out to D. A. Briggs', one of the defendants, and told him that Samuel Briggs had purchased Grant's interest, and had agreed to release Grant and Robert West, and that he, the witness, had been sent to the defendant by Samuel Briggs, to get him to sign the bond, as security, to enable the said Samuel Briggs to release Grant and West; that he did not tell the defendant that Grant's and West's names were to be erased from the bond; that said defendant, D. A. Briggs, then signed said bond; at the time he signed it, the names of Grant and Robert West were on it; that the same day, after the defendant, D. A. Briggs, signed said bond, the names of Grant and West were erased from the same; that neither of the defendants were present when it was done; that Ebenezer Briggs' name was to the bond before Grant's and West's were taken off; that said Ebenezer told witness that he had authorized Samuel Briggs to sign his name to the bond, but never heard him say anything about knowing that Grant and West were to be released. This was all the evidence in the cause. The defendants then prayed the court to give these instructions to the jury: 1st. That if they believed from the evidence that the bond sued on was altered or changed in any material part by erasing the names of any of the obligors, after the defendants or any of them had signed it, without the knowledge or consent of the defendants, they must find for the defendants. 2nd. That if they believed that the names of Grant and West, or either of them, were erased or stricken out of the bond, without their knowledge or consent, they will find for the defendants. 3rd. That if the bond sued on in this case be not the deed of both defendants, the plaintiffs cannot recover in either action. The court refused them, and, on motion of the plaintiff, instructed the jury, that if they believed the names of Grant and West had been erased from the bond, yet if t...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Baird
...Weld, 2 Pa. 54; Dover v. Robinson, 64 Me. 183; Draper v. Wood, 112 Mass. 315, 17 Am. Rep. 92; Rucker v. Howard, 2 Bibb (Ky.), 168; Briggs v. Glenn, 7 Mo. 572; Long v. 84 N.C. 15; Dewey v. Bradbury, 1 Tyler, 186; Dobyns v. Rawley, 76 Va. 537; Reese v. United States, 9 Wall. 13, 19 L.Ed. 541;......
-
State v. Blunt
...for appellant. (1) The judgment ought to be reversed because of the mutilation of the record. Medlin v. Platte Co., 8 Mo. 325; Briggs v. Glenn, 7 Mo. 572; Dennison Co., 33 Mo. 168. (2) The instructions certainly do not declare the law: First. It is error for the court to refer the jury to t......
-
LaMmers v. White Sewing Mach. Co.
...to be material. The remarks of the court in the case of Springfield Bank and the Hord case must be considered mere obiter dicta. Briggs v. Glenn, 7 Mo. 572; Ivory v. Michael, 33 Mo. 398; Trigg v. Taylor, 27 Mo. 245; Britten v. Dieskee, 46 Mo. 591; Presbury v. Michael, 33 Mo. 542; Owings v. ......
-
State v. Allen
...58 Iowa 238; State v. Churchill, 48 Ark. 426; State v. McGonigle, 101 Mo. 353; 2 Gray, 556; 24 How., 315; 7 Blackf., 61; 2 Penn. St., 54; 7 Mo. 572; 80 Ky. 388; 14 604; 21 Iowa 244; 2 Head, 615; 4 Gray, 95; State v. Martin, 56 Miss. 108. Attention is specially called to Smith v. U. S. and S......