Crow v. Harmon
Decision Date | 31 July 1857 |
Citation | 25 Mo. 417 |
Parties | CROW, Defendant in Error, v. Harmon, Plaintiff in Error. |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
1. An instrument in the following form----is within section 1 of the act concerning bonds and notes (R. C. 1845, p. 189), and imports a consideration; it is not champertous on its face.
Error to Holt Circuit Court.
This was a suit upon the following instrument in writing:
The plaintiff in his petition set forth the execution by the defendant of the above instrument, and alleged further that “the said road was not opened and kept open along the creek where it was located, but that the County Court of Holt county, Missouri, has refused to open the same.”
At the trial the plaintiff read in evidence the above instrument, and rested. The defendant then, to show that damages had been assessed to him on account of the opening through his land of the M. T. Lewis county road, and the amount of damages assessed, offered in evidence the records of the proceedings of the Holt County Court, had June 4, 1856, as follows: “Now here, in the matter of Martin T. Lewis and others--petition for county road--the court not deeming the road of sufficient utility to justify the payment of $285--that being the amount of damages awarded to Jacob Harmon by a jury of six men--the court refuses to establish said road, and hereby rescinds a former order appointing Martin T. Lewis overseer on said road and ordering him to open the same.” The court, at the instance of plaintiff, rejected the transcript of said order. This was all the evidence adduced. The court, at the instance of the plaintiff, instructed the jury as follows: The court refused the following instructions asked by defendant:
Foster, Vories and Loan, for plaintiff in error.
I. The instrument of writing is champertous, void and contrary to public policy.
II. The instrument of writing sued on does not import a consideration, and the petition fails to allege one. The plaintiff gave nothing for defendant's undertaking; no services were contracted for, and, so far...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Scott v. Crider
... ... happened it may be declared on as a note. 1 Randolph on ... Commercial Paper (2 Ed.), par. 95; Crow v. Hamon, 25 ... Mo. 417; Kessler v. Clayes, 147 Mo.App. 88; ... Robbins v. Robbins Est., 175 Mo.App. 609; ... McGehee v. Childress, 2nd ... decedent's estate and enforceable as such against it ... [Clark's Appeal, 57 Conn. 565; Crow v. Harmon, ... 25 Mo. 417; 1 Joyce, Defenses to Commercial Paper, sec. 494; ... 1 Randolph, Commercial Paper (2 Ed.), p. 95.] But whether the ... note ... ...
-
Phelps v. Manecke
... ... the same, as illegal or immoral, or against public policy ... Ordelhiede v. Railroad, 80 Mo.App. 357: Crow v ... Herman, 25 Mo. 417; Brown v. Binge, 21 Ore ... 260; 28 Am. St. Rep. 752; Clothing Co. v. Sharpe, 83 ... Mo.App. 392; Lawson on Contracts ... ...
-
Taylor v. Perkins
... ... attorney's expense, such for instance, as payment of ... costs, that the illegality appears: Crow v. Harmon, ... 25 Mo. 417; Duke v. Harper, 66 Mo. 51, 60, and next ... to closing paragraph page 61. See also statement of the case, ... page 51 ... ...
-
Siver v. Guarantee Investment Company
... ... plaintiff to prove a consideration for the sixteen notes ... before admitting them. County of Montgomery v ... Anchley, 92 Mo. 126; Crow v. Harrmon, 25 Mo ... 417; Woodson v. Ritchie, 36 Mo.App. 506 ... John W ... Noble and Geo. H. Shields for respondent ... ...