Johnson v. Colton
Decision Date | 12 March 1895 |
Citation | 30 S.W. 116,127 Mo. 473 |
Parties | Johnson v. Colton et al.; Colton, Appellant |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Saline Circuit Court. -- Hon. Richard Field, Judge.
Affirmed.
Boyd & Murrell for respondent.
(1) The court erred in permitting witnesses to repeat what defendant Thompson had said to them, especially witness John M Johnson, for reasons: First. That Thompson had parted with all interest he ever had in the notes and deeds of trust before his statements testified to were made and he could not then impress the title of his assignee as fraudulent. He was not in possession. Second. There was no joint interest between defendants Colton and Thomas, and no evidence tending to show a conspiracy as charged in the petition, and the declarations of Thompson were made long after, and not in furtherance of any object of, such alleged conspiracy. Greenleaf's Evidence, secs. 111, 174; Albert v Besel, 88 Mo. 154; Farrar v. Snyder, 30 Mo.App 98, 99; Holliday v. Jackson, 31 Mo.App. 265; Strotmeyer v. Zeppenfeld, 28 Mo.App. 273; Hambright v. Brockman, 59 Mo. 52. (2) Even if it be the fact that plaintiff was drunk when he executed the deed of trust of December 6, the deed of trust is still good in favor of a bona fide purchaser of the note before maturity. Bradwater v. Dame, 10 Mo. 277; Eastin v. Perry, 29 Mo. 96. And good, even if no consideration. Burrows v. Alter, 7 Mo. 24; Blount v. Spratt, 113 Mo. 55.
L. W. Scott, James Cooney and W. D. Bush for respondent.
This is an action in the nature of a bill in equity, instituted in the circuit court of Saline county against John B. Colton, Samuel C. McPherrin, W. A Thompson and the Farmers' and Mechanics' Bank of Galesburg, Illinois, to set aside and cancel two promissory notes, one dated the fifth day of December, 1889, for the sum of $ 1,383.80, and the other, dated the sixth day of December, 1889, for the same amount, both payable to W. A. Thompson; also two deeds of trust given to secure the same, of corresponding dates, executed by the plaintiff, and a trustee's deed, executed in pursuance of a sale made under the second of said deeds of trust. The finding and decree of the circuit court was, in substance, as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial