Brown v. North

• Decision Date: 31 October 1855
• Citation: 21 Mo. 528
• Parties: BROWN, Appellant, v. NORTH, Respondent.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

21 Mo. 528

BROWN, Appellant,

v.NORTH, Respondent.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

October Term, 1855.

1. An action cannot be maintained on a note obtained by fraudulent representations.

Appeal from Franklin Circuit Court.

Action by Brown against North upon a promissory note. The defence relied upon in the answer was, that the note was obtained by the fraudulent representations of the plaintiff. At the trial without a jury, the court found the facts to be, that John F. Mense, on behalf of himself and the defendant, employed the plaintiff to purchase a tract of land for them, agreeing to pay him twenty-five dollars for his services, and authorizing him to pay not exceeding eight dollars an acre for the land. The plaintiff succeeded in purchasing the land at seven dollars an acre. Before a deed was executed, the defendant bought out Mense's interest. Afterwards, the defendant executed and delivered to plaintiff the note sued on for $302. At the time this note was executed, the plaintiff claimed for his services the sum of $277, being the difference between the cost of the land purchased at seven dollars per acre and its value at eight dollars per acre, and the further sum of twenty-five dollars. He represented to the defendant that Mense had instructed him to pay eight dollars per acre, and the note was given upon the faith of the representation. When the defendant executed the note, he knew the plaintiff had obtained the land for seven dollars an acre; but it does not appear that he knew that the plaintiff had agreed with Mense to make purchase for twenty-five dollars only. Upon these facts the court below declared as law that the note was without consideration and fraudulent as to all except the twenty-five dollars and interest, and gave judgment for the plaintiff for that amount only. The plaintiff appealed.

N. Holmes, for appellant.

1. It is not found as a fact that any false representations whatever were made, nor as law that the note was obtained by fraud. 2. A note being in its nature entire, partial failure of consideration cannot be pleaded in an action on the note. (Story on Contracts, § 482.) Where there is a valuable consideration, the courts will not inquire into the adequacy of it. (Story on Con. § 483. 8 Mo. Rep. 316-9.) Besides, neither the defence of partial failure, nor partial want of consideration, was set up in the answer. 3. An adjustment of a disputed right or claim, the foregoing of some benefit, or the incurring of some disadvantage, is a valuable consideration for a contract. ( Halsa v. Halsa, 8 Mo. Rep. 303-7. Mullanphy v. Riley, 10 Mo. Rep. 489-94. Story on Contracts, § 431-2, § 440.)

J. D. Stevenson, for respondent. An agent cannot speculate on his principal, and the note sued on being given in part for profits made by the plaintiff on his purchase, is to that extent fraudulent and void. (Chitty on...