Hale v. Stuart
| Decision Date | 31 October 1882 |
| Citation | 76 Mo. 20 |
| Parties | HALE v. STUART, Plaintiff in Error. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Error to Buchanan Circuit Court.--HON. JOSEPH P. GRUBB, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
This was a suit by Sarah E. Hale and Benjamin F. Hale against Wm. P. Stuart. The petition stated that on the -- day of October, 1873, Benjamin F. Hale, as the agent of Sarah E. Hale, and at defendant's request, loaned to defendant the sum of $650 upon defendant's promise that he would loan said money at a good rate of interest, on good security, for plaintiff Sarah, and that defendant would at all times be personally responsible to her for the same; that on the 14th day of October, 1873, defendant represented to Benj. F. Hale, as agent aforesaid, that he had loaned said money, and produced a note dated October 14th, 1873, for $650, executed by one Ide, and in favor of and payable one year after date to defendant, which said note defendant indorsed ““without recourse,” against Benj. F. Hale's objections, but at the same time stated that he would be personally responsible for the same if it was not paid at maturity; that defendant further stated that said note was well secured by a first deed of trust on real estate in Hannibal, to-wit: lot 67. etc. The petition further stated that said note was secured by a second deed of trust of said real estate; that there was a prior incumbrance for a large sum on said property at the time defendant made said loan; that defendant well knew said prior lien existed, and afterward purchased said incumbrance and became the owner thereof; that said note was not paid at maturity, and said real estate was, on the 9th day of August, 1875, sold under said second deed of trust; that on said 9th day of August, defendant requested B. F. Hale, as agent aforesaid, to attend said sale for him and bid and buy in said real estate for him, and promised that if he, the said Hale, would attend said sale and buy in said real estate for defendant, and have the trustee make a deed for said real estate to defendant, he, defendant, would pay the said note or sum of $650 and the accrued interest thereon to said Benj. F. Hale, as agent aforesaid; that Benj. F. Hale did attend the said sale, and relying on defendant's promise aforesaid, did buy said real estate for defendant for the sum of $600, which sum was at the time credited on the note; that the trustee made a deed to defendant, and defendant accepted the same, and had been in possession of said real estate receiving rents therefrom ever...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
O'Bryan v. Allen
... ... McClurg v. Phillips, 49 Mo. 315; Grady v ... McCorkle, 57 Mo. 172; State ex rel. v ... Sappington, 64 Mo. 20; Hale v. Stuart, 76 Mo ... 20; Savings Institution v. Collonious, 63 Mo. 290; ... Henderson v. Dickey, 50 Mo. 161; Devorse v ... Snider, 60 Mo. 235; ... ...
-
Rossen v. Rice
...so as to answer for the debt of another, it would still be outside the statute of frauds. [Brown et al. v. Brown, 47 Mo. 130; Hale v. Stuart, 76 Mo. 20; Winn v. Hillyer, 43 Mo.App. 139; Armstrong First National Bank (Mo. App.), 195 S.W. 562; Wahl v. Cunningham, 320 Mo. 57, 6 S.W.2d 576, 67 ......
-
McIntyre v. Federal Life Insurance Co.
... ... Co., 19 Mo.App. 252; Worth v. Insurance Co., 64 ... Mo.App. 583; Lee v. Porter, 18 Mo.App. 378; Winn ... v. Hillyer, 43 Mo.App. 139; Hale v. Stuart, 76 ... Mo. 20; Hughes v. Carson, 90 Mo. 399; Grace v ... Nesbit, 109 Mo. 9; Allen v. Chouteau, 102 Mo ... 318; Bank v. Pettit, 85 ... ...
-
Carney v. Carney
...beyond the reach of all of them in the lifetime of their ancestor. The answer states a good defence. Walker v. Owens, 79 Mo. 563; Hale v. Stewart, 76 Mo. 20. (4) It was not objected in the lower court that George Carney was incompetent as a witness because the contract was made with his dec......