Downs v. Horton
Decision Date | 09 April 1921 |
Docket Number | No. 21509.,21509. |
Citation | 230 S.W. 103,287 Mo. 414 |
Parties | DOWNS v. HORTON et al. |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Greene County; Guy D. Kirby, Judge.
Action by Charles Downs against J. E. Horton and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appealed to the Springfield Court of Appeals, which reversed and remanded the cause, with directions, and Certified the case to the Supreme Court on the ground of conflict in decisions (209 S. W. 595). Judgment of trial court reversed, and cause remanded.
Lamar, Lamar & Lamar, of Houston, for appellant.
Hiett & Scott, of Houston, and Roscoe 0. Patterson, of Springfield, for respondents.
This case comes to us upon certification by the Springfield Court of Appeals. The opinion written by the Presiding Judge of that court (209 S. W. 595), in which both of his associates concurred, is as follows:
" The plaintiff then bought the notes mentioned, the face value of which aggregated $1,626.88, and paid therefor $1,586.68. His profit was $40 and the accrued interest not then due. There is no question as to plaintiff having paid this amount for these two notes, as this was proven not only by plaintiff, but by documentary evidence. The Texas note was later paid without trouble. The notes in question were assigned to plaintiff `without recourse,' as Tuck stated that he did not and would not indorse any of the paper sold by him. There was a credit on this $800 note of $266 made on the same date as the date of the note of which plaintiff knew when it was first offered to him, but nothing was said as to this credit, and plaintiff made no inquiry, as there was nothing unusual. The plaintiff testified positively that when he bought the note he had no knowledge or information or even suspicion of any fraud in its procurement. The defendants offered no evidence except some of the defendants testified that they had never paid anything on the note. The defendants state the facts most favorably to them in these words: `The plaintiff purchased the notes, amounting to one-third of all he had, on statements from men that knew the makers of the notes, and which statements the plaintiff himself in his letter to J. M. Hubbard said would lead him not to consider the notes, and took them from Tuck indorsed without recourse, when Tuck before had written him that he would indorse them; took them indorsed without recourse by a man that he believed to be solvent; took them on men that lived one hundred and seventy miles from him, and men that he had not heard of prior to the purchase of notes; did not know whether they were farmers or not, whether they were worth a thousand dollars or nothing, and whether they existed or not, and indorsed by the only man he believed to be solvent without recourse.'
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Glendo State Bank v. Abbott
... ... DeJonge & Co. v. Woodport Hotel Co., 77 N.J.L. 233; ... 72 A. 439; Regester's Sons Co. v. Reed, 185 ... Mass. 226; 70 N.E. 53; Cf. Downs v. Horton, 287 Mo ... 414, 230 S.W. 103. We call special attention to the ... discussion of this point in Leavitt v. Thurston, 38 ... Utah 351, ... ...
-
Home Trust Co. v. Josephson
...verdict. Wolff v. Campbell, 110 Mo. 114, 19 S.W. 622; Cowell v. Employers' Indemnity Co., 326 Mo. 1103, 34 S.W. (2d) 705; Downs v. Horton, 287 Mo. 435, 230 S.W. 103; Roach-Manigan Pav. Co. v. Surety Ins. Co., 238 S.W. 121; Lumber Co. v. Railroad Co., 243 Mo. 245, 147 S.W. 1052; Lindhorst v.......
-
George v. Surkamp
...Inv. Co. v. Vette, 142 Mo. 560; Baade v. Cramer, 278 Mo. 516, 213 S.W. 121; Carr v. Lewis Coal Co., 15 Mo. App. 551; Downs v. Horton, 287 Mo. 414, 230 S.W. 103; Town of Enfield v. Jordan, 119 U.S. 680, 30 L. Ed. 523; 17 R.C.L. 1013; State v. Board of Commissioners of Wichita Co., 53 Pac. 52......
-
Hetzler v. Millard
...the mortgage securing this note. 10 C.J.S., sec. 322, p. 814; 8 Am. Jur., sec. 388, p. 123; Downs v. Horton, 209 S.W. 595, affirmed 287 Mo. 414, 230 S.W. 103; Reeves v. Letts, 143 Mo. App. 196, 128 S.W. 246; McMurray v. McMurray, 258 Mo. 405, 167 S.W. 513; Hellweg v. Bush, 228 Mo. App. 876,......