Hicks v. Beedle
| Decision Date | 02 February 1903 |
| Parties | CHARLES R. HICKS, Respondent, v. AUGUSTUS D. BEEDLE, Appellant |
| Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court.--Hon. James Gibson, Judge.
Reversed and remanded.
L. T Collier for appellant.
(1) The court erred in refusing defendants' evidence offered to show that the consideration of the trustee's deed to Hicks (to-wit, $ 700), was grossly inadequate, and also in refusing to permit defendant to prove that the property in question was sold by Hicks soon after his purchase for $ 2,000. Hardwicke v. Hamilton, 121 Mo. 465; Montgomery v. Miller, 131 Mo. 599; Stoppel v Schroeder, 62 Mo. 147; Kelly v. Hunt, 61 Mo 463. (2) The court erred in refusing defendant's instructions and in giving the instruction directing the jury to find for plaintiff. Orrick v. Durham, 79 Mo. 174; 24 Am. and Eng. Ency. 275-6, and authorities there cited; Fisher v. Stephens, 143 Mo. 190; Smith v. Stephens, 164 Mo. 423; Gouch v. Hollan, 30 Mo.App. 454; Kuhl v. Meyer, 42 Mo.App. 481; Koehring v. Muemminghoff, 61 Mo. 403; Eitelgeorge v. House Building Ass'n, 69 Mo. 55. (3) There was no proof of the assignment of the note set out in the petition, or of the indorsements thereon. Bank v. Donnell, 35 Mo. 373; Bank v. Pennington, 42 Mo.App. 355. The admission taken from defendant's answer and read by plaintiff to prove his case, was not the best evidence, nor does it meet or sustain the allegations of the petition. Wynne v. Aubuchon, 23 Mo. 30; Washington Co. v. Railroad, 58 Mo. 372.
Ralph E. Scofield for respondent.
This is an action for a balance alleged to be due on a promissory note. The court gave a peremptory instruction for plaintiff and judgment being entered, defendant has appealed.
The note was originally given by Mary B. and James I. Gray to Henry Rogers for the sum of $ 1,600, and was secured by deed of trust on real estate. Plaintiff alleges that the note was thereafter sold and indorsed to him by Rogers. It seems that the Grays sold the land on which they had given the deed of trust to the defendant who assumed the payment of the note, by a statement to that effect in the deed. Defendant then sold the land to Leona Beedle, who sold it to Sarah Hayward, who sold to Dreyfus, who sold to Campie Dennis. Neither of these grantees after defendant, assumed the payment of the note.
Dennis paid interest to plaintiff and took from him what is claimed to be an extension of time on the note. The paper reads as follows:
It was not shown that defendant consented to this.
The property was sold for $ 700 before June 9, 1901, plaintiff being the purchaser. Defendant offered to prove that the property was worth $ 2,500, and that plaintiff soon after buying it in, sold it for $ 2,000. This offer was refused.
The note on its face drew nine per cent interest from date and ten per cent after maturity. Time of payment was extended at various times and the rate of interest was reduced to seven per cent on some extensions and eight per cent on others, until the above receipt was given, when plaintiff himself admits that at that time the rate was agreed to be ten per cent, and he accepted one dollar as interest on the interest from the date it should have been paid.
Plaintiff introduced no evidence of the assignment of the note other than the mere indorsement on the back thereof.
When Dennis paid the interest evidenced by...
To continue reading
Request your trial