Glascock v. Rand
Citation | 14 Mo. 550 |
Parties | GLASCOCK AND OTHERS v. RAND. |
Decision Date | 31 March 1851 |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Missouri |
APPEAL FROM MARION CIRCUIT COURT.
GLOVER & CAMPBELL, for Appellee. ... It does not appear by the affidavit of Glascock, he had any defense to the suit. 2. It does not appear how the note came to be executed to Rand. 3. It does not appear that the pretended testimony wanted was not to be had in Marion county at and before the trial. That he wrote letters is nothing; may have written them to the wrong place to get a continuance. Mrs. Brigham knew the ages of her children, why did not take her deposition. When did Fuqua tell him? May be some one told him before Fuqua did. 4. What is meant by “the testimony” mentioned in connection with Richmond's letter; what was it? 5. How was it material the note being given in part for the interest of Brigham's heirs that three of the heirs were under age. Did the infants sell to him? Was the sale made by proceedings in partition, by trustees, or how? 6. Suppose Lavinia Brooks was not 21 years of age when she signed her deed, what has that to do with it? Why did he not prove that; he does not show. Was Lavinia Brooks one of the three heirs? 7. Suppose he was interested in the share of three infants who had not conveyed. This is not of course a defense. He may have secured himself by indemnifying bonds that they should convey on arriving at age.
This was a petition in debt--plea the statutory one. Glascock was served on the 22nd of June, 1849. At the trial torm in November following, the cause was continued on his affidavit; and at the succeeding term, in March, 1850, he again applied for a continuance, filing, for that purpose, the following affidavit: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Williams v. Neely
...the covenant against incumbrances was broken, the defense to the note existed, and Neely knew it when he purchased the note. In Glascock v. Rand, 14 Mo. 550, and Van Buskirk, v. Day, 32 Ill. 260, 267, 268, that is said upon this question is obiter dictum, and it goes on farther than to expr......
-
Edwards v. Johnston
...is not bound to see to the execution of the contract by payee. (Teideman on Com. Paper, Vol. 1, p. 261, Sec. 300. See also Glascock v. Rand, 14 Mo. 550; Cagle Lane (Ark.), 5 S.W. 790; Iron Co. v. Brown, 63 Me. 139; Dissenting opinion in Williams v. Neeley, 134 F. 1; Flood v. Petry (Cal.), 1......
-
Brown v. Weldon
...their notes for the price of the jack, payable to Brown, are not entitled to a deduction because of any unsoundness of the jack. Glascock v. Rand, 14 Mo. 550; Neg. Inst., sec. 176; Smith v. Brown, 63 Me. 139; Aldrich v. Stockwell, 9 Allen, 45. (9) The measure of damage for non-registry of t......
- Dirlam v. Wenger