Deitz v. Corwin
Decision Date | 31 January 1865 |
Citation | 35 Mo. 376 |
Parties | DEITZ & WALDE, Plaintiffs in Error, v. CHARLES J. CORWIN and WILLIAM G. CHEENEY, Defendants in Error. |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Error to Cole Circuit Court.
G. T. White, for plaintiffs in error.
It was admissible to allege and show what the understanding of the parties was as to their liability at the time of making the instrument; and moreover, Corwin's name being written on the note at the time of its making, made him an original promisor. (Lewis v. Harvey, 18 Mo. 74-82; Perry v. Barnett, 18 Mo. 140-145; Schneider v. Schiffman, 18 Mo. 571-2; Baker v. Black, 3 Mo. 225-7.)
Parol evidence is admissible to show how the parties stood on the paper, whether principal, security, endorser or guarantor (Christy's Adm'r v. Herne, 24 Mo. 247), and what was their intention. (3 Ves. & B. 3.) The rule only forbids a change by parol of the language of the instrument, and does not forbid showing by circumstances the understanding of the parties. (1 Greenl. Ev. §§ 277, 287-8, 295.) It is immaterial upon what part of the instrument Corwin signed his name. If it was signed with the view of making him a joint or original promisor, he is now liable. (Will. Pers. Prop. 73; Garnett v. Ferguson, 9 Mo. 125, 128.) The rule only excludes evidence that would change the language of the instrument, and not the circumstances in which the party was placed. (1 Greenl. Ev., § 297.)
J. E. Belch, for defendant in error.
Corwin is to be treated as an indorser of an inland bill of exchange, and should have had notice. (R. C. 1855, p. 296, § 16.) Parol evidence cannot be introduced to vary written agreements. (29 Mo. 307; Edw. Bills, 315.) The petition improperly joins two distinct causes of action in one count.
The petition in this case is as follows: with an admission of a credit, and a prayer of judgment.
The instrument annexed to the petition is as follows: On the back of which was the endorsement “C. J. Corwin.”
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bagnell Timber Co. v. Missouri, Kansas & Texas R. Co.
... ... Woodson, 4 Mo. 114; Hadwen ... v. Ins. Co., 13 Mo. 473; Hall v. Harrison, 21 ... Mo. 227; Chambers v. Carthel, 35 Mo. 374; Deitz ... v. Corwin, 35 Mo. 376; Curry v. Lackey, 35 Mo ... 389; Baker v. Berry, 37 Mo. 306; Dyer v ... Krayer, 37 Mo. 603; Bowling v ... ...
-
The First National Bank of St Charles v. Payne
... ... Rickey v. Dameron, 48 Mo. 61; Marshall v ... Cabanne, 40 Mo.App. 38; Dietz v. Corwin, 35 Mo ... 376; Schnell v. P. M. Co., 89 Ill. 581. (6) When one ... of the joint obligors in a contract dies, the obligee is not ... thereby ... ...
-
Toler v. Coover
... ... Even if we were passing on a demurrer to the petition we ... could not consider this exhibit. [Chambers v ... Carthel, 35 Mo. 374; Deitz v. Corwin, 35 Mo ... 376; Phillips v. Evens, 64 Mo. 17; Pomeroy v ... Fullerton, 113 Mo. 440, 21 S.W. 19; State ex rel. v ... Haphe, 31 S.W.2d ... ...
-
Butler v. Gambs
...v. Richardson, 36 Mo. 130; Cook v. Renick, 19 Ill. 598; Ivory v. Bank of Missouri, 36 Mo. 475; Turk v. Stahl, 53 Mo. 437; Deitz v. Corwin, 35 Mo. 376; Merchants' Bank v. Easley, 44 Mo. 186; Stagg v. Linnerfelser, 59 Mo. 336; Tenny v. Prince, 4 Pick. (Mass.) 385; Champion et al. v. Griffith,......