Frye v. Shepherd
Decision Date | 28 July 1913 |
Parties | ALBERT F. FRYE, Respondent, v. EDWARD LEE SHEPHERD, Appellant |
Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Jasper County Circuit Court, Division No. One.--Hon Joseph D. Perkins, Judge.
Judgment affirmed.
A. C Burnett for appellant.
(1) If by agreement interest on a note is to be paid annually this constitutes a debt if the parties make it so by their contract. And where a note provides for compounding interest if not paid when due it is optional with the holder of the note to compound interest or foreclose. And he may foreclose if he desires. Maples v. Jones, 62 Mo. 440; Rowe v. Schertz, 74 Mo.App. 602. (2) Where a mortgage provides for a foreclosure if note be not paid according to the tenor and effect, it means any part and default of interest will warrant fore-closure. Scherbe v Kennedy, 64 Wis. 564. (3) Where a note reads "with annual interest" if the interest is not paid annually it becomes a debt and it must be sued for on the mortgage securing the note foreclosed by reason thereof. Cook v. Wiles, 4 N.W. 169. (4) Where parties to a contract have given its terms particular construction, such construction will generally be adopted by the court in giving effect to its provisions. Welch v. Mischke, 154 Mo.App. 728. (5) Where language of a written contract is ambiguous the mutual construction given it by the parties is admissible to show their meaning. The object of interpretation of instruments should be to reach the actual intention of the parties. Ellis v. Harrison, 104 Mo. 270; Carter v. Foster, 145 Mo. 383; Union Depot Co. v. Railroad, 131 Mo. 305. (6) Where contracts are of doubtful meaning the construction given by the parties will be adopted by the courts. Laing v. Holmes, 93 Mo.App. 231; Craig v. Seybt, 91 Mo.App. 242; Mathews v. Danahy, 26 Mo.App. 660.
John Dolan for respondent.
(1) Where a note, by its terms, is made payable in a given number of years with interest from date at the rate of eight per cent per annum, the interest is payable, not annually, but at maturity of the note. Koehring v. Muemminghoff, 61 Mo. 403; Ramsdell v. Hulett, 50 Kan. 440, 31 P. 1092; Motsinger v. Miller, 59 Kan. 573, 53 P. 869; Tanner v. Dundee Land Co., 12 F. 646. (2) The use of the words, per annum, in fixing the rate of interest in a promissory note, and the provision therein that if interest be not paid annually, to become as principal and bear the same rate of interest, cannot be regarded as a promise to pay interest annually. Motsinger v. Miller, supra; Koehring v. Muemminghoff, supra. (3) Even if appellant was correct in construing such words as a special promise to pay interest annually, his action would be premature, because, where interest is payable annually with an option to the maker to make it a part of the principal in case of default, no action can be brought for it until the principal becomes due. Wood v. Whisler, 67 Iowa 676, 25 N.W. 847. (4) The words used with reference to the payment of interest were plain and capable of legal construction, and parol evidence to contradict that construction would be improper. If the contract is not ambiguous, the parties must be governed by the contract. Koehring v. Muemminghoff, supra; Ramsdell v. Hulett, supra.
This was a suit to enjoin a mortgagee from advertising and selling certain real estate mentioned in a mortgage which had been given by plaintiff to secure his promissory note, which is as follows:
The plaintiff's petition alleged the facts concerning the note and mortgage, and stated that the mortgage contains this provision: etc.
It is alleged in the petition that the note is not yet due and payable according to its tenor and effect, but that defendant has caused said property to be advertised for sale on a certain date for the purpose of paying said note. The usual allegations of irreparable damage to invoke equitable jurisdiction are followed by a prayer for injunctive relief, restraining the defendant from selling said property under the mortgage until maturity of the note and default in its payment.
After a hearing, and upon the issuance of a permanent injunction, the defendant appealed. The question for our determination is whether a failure to pay interest annually on the note is a breach authorizing foreclosure of the mortgage. Appellant contends that it is, and respondent by a vigorous negative supported by the decision of the learned trial judge, makes the issue. The evidence shows that about thirty days before the expiration of the first year of the note's existence, the payee notified respondent that he expected the interest to be promptly paid; that it was not so paid, respondent saying he applied for an extension of time and was given ten days, at the end of which time he says he went to defendant's office and asked to see the note, and upon seeing it told the defendant that it was a compound interest note, that it was optional with him whether he would pay the interest until the maturity of the note, and that defendant had no right to sell the property under the note and mortgage. Appellant advertised the property for sale and respondent brought this suit.
The note is unambiguous, and means just what its language imports in plain English. A similar case arose in the State of Kansas in which the note followed substantially the same form as the one in our case (Motsinger v. Miller, 53 P. 869). The Supreme Court of that State said:
In Koehring v. Muemminghoff, 61 Mo. 403, the Supreme Court of this State said:
In Wood v. Whisler, 67 Iowa 676, 25 N.W. 847, it was held that where the notes secured by a mortgage provide that "if interest is not promptly paid annually, the same becomes a part of the principal and shall bear interest at...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Wolfersberger v. Hoppenjon
... ... year after date for failure to pay the first semi-annual ... interest. [ Wilson v. Reed, 270 Mo. 400, 193 S.W ... 819; Frye v. Shepherd, 173 Mo.App. 200, 158 S.W ... 717; Koehring v. Muemminghoff, 61 Mo. 403, 21 Am ... Rep. 402.] ... IV ... We ... ...
-
Stewart v. Omaha Loan & Trust Company
... ... [ Morgan v. Martien, 32 Mo. 438; Owings v ... Mackenzie, 133 Mo. 323, 33 S.W. 802; Frye v ... Shepherd, 173 Mo.App. 200, 209, 158 S.W. 717; ... Westminter College v. Peirsol, 161 Mo. 270.] This ... conclusion as to priority is ... ...
-
Central States Life Ins. Co. v. Lewin
... ... 155, 16 S.Ct. 967; Johns v. Rice, 145 N.W ... 290; Koehring v. Muemminghoff, 61 Mo. 402; ... Wilson v. Reed, 270 Mo. 400, 193 S.W. 819; Frye ... v. Sheppard, 173 Mo.App. 200; Canton Trust Co. v ... Durrett, 320 Mo. 1208, 9 S.W.2d 925; Graves v ... Davidson, 334 Mo. 882, 58 S.W.2d 711; ... ...
-
Whetsel v. Forgey
... ... against the enforcement of the alleged deed of trust ... Koehring v. Mueminghoff, 64 Mo. 403, 21 Am. Rep ... 402; Frye" v. Shepard, 173 Mo.App. 200 ... Blair, ... P. J. White, J. , concurs; Walker, J. , ... concurs in the result ... \xC2" ... ...