Henshaw v. Dutton
| Decision Date | 30 April 1878 |
| Citation | 67 Mo. 666 |
| Parties | HENSHAW v. DUTTON, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
The Decision in this Case, 59 Mo. 139, Affirmed.
Appeal from Buchanan Circuit Court--HON. JOSEPH P. GRUBB, Judge.
B. R. Vineyard and A. H. Vories for appellant.
Samuel Ensworth and E. O. Hill for respondent.
This case was before this court in 1875, and the opinion then delivered was not formed hastily or without due deliberation, nor are we now disposed to change it. The main objection then made to the note was that Henshaw, the obligee, had failed to procure his release from a partnership indebtedness of himself and Dutton to a note to Beattie & Co. But we were unable to see then, and cannot yet understand, how this could operate to the prejudice of Dutton; on the contrary, it would seem to have operated in his favor, and if Henshaw chose to waive it, the refusal of Beattie & Co. to discharge him could not have injured the defendant. In the case as it was tried in 1875 the execution of the note was conceded. In the present case its execution is also condeded, but it is denied, under oath, that the note was delivered. There is no material difference between the defenses then and now. The statement of the defendant was, as a witness: &c. The court instructed the jury that, under the pleadings and admissions in the case, the plaintiff is entitled to a verdict, &c., for the amount of the note and interest, &c. There was no question of fact to be submitted to the jury; the legal effect of the course of both plaintiff and defendant was considered in all its aspects by this court in the former opinion, and, therefore, with the concurrence of all the judges, the judgment must be affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hurt v. Ford
...is not admissible to vary the meaning of a note. This case was before this court again in 1878, and the same doctrine announced. Henshaw v. Dutton, 67 Mo. 666. same question was before this court in Jones v. Shaw, 67 Mo. 667, and it was again held that a note can not be treated as an escrow......
-
Morris Plan Co. v. Universal Credit Co.
...9 Mo. 697; Chrisman v. Hodges, 75 Mo. 413; Koehring v. Muemminghoff, 61 Mo. 403, 21 Am. Rep. 402; Henshaw v. Dutton, 59 Mo. 139 (affirmed 67 Mo. 666); Helmrichs v. Gehrke, 56 79; State ex rel. W. L. Morrison Inv. Co. v. Trimble, 301 Mo. 146, 256 S.W. 171 (quashing certiorari, 1922); Sandbro......
-
Morris Plan Co. v. Universal Credit Co.
...9 Mo. 697; Chrisman v. Hodges, 75 Mo. 413; Koehring v. Muemminghoff, 61 Mo. 403, 21 Am. Rep. 402; Henshaw v. Dutton, 59 Mo. 139 (affirmed 67 Mo. 666); Helmrichs v. Gehrke, 56 Mo. 79; State ex rel. W.L. Morrison Inv. Co. v. Trimble, 301 Mo. 146, 256 S.W. 171 (quashing certiorari, 1922); Sand......
-
Hurt v. Ford
...is not admissible to vary the meaning of a note. This case was before this court again in 1878, and the same doctrine announced. Henshaw v. Dutton, 67 Mo. 666. The same question was before this court in Jones v. Shaw, 67 Mo. 667; and it was again held that a note cannot be treated as an esc......