Merchants' Bank v. Berthold
| Decision Date | 31 March 1870 |
| Citation | 45 Mo. 527 |
| Parties | THE MERCHANTS' BANK, Respondent, v. P. A. BERTHOLD, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court.
Garesche & Mead, for appellant, cited 1 Greenl. Ev., § 108, 12th ed.; Field & Beardslee v. Liverman, 17 Mo. 218; Crowther v. Gibson, 19 Mo. 366; Webster v. Canmann, 40 Mo. 156; Morrison v. Hancock, id. 561; Gay v. Gay, 5 Allen, 157; Sessions v. Little, 9 N. H. 276; Featherman v. Miller, 45 Penn. 96; Tobin v. Shaw, 45 Maine, 347; Hall v. Jones, 37 N. H. 144; Tucker v. Peaslee, 36 N. H. 181; Beardslee v. Steinmesch, 38 Mo. 168; State, to use of Clendenin, v. Schneider, 35 Mo. 536.
The defendants are residents of St. Louis, and are sued as the indorsers of a negotiable promissory note payable at St. Genevieve, Missouri. The note matured and was protested for non-payment, May 24, 1867. The notary who protested the note testified that he mailed the usual notices to the defendants on the day of the protest, inclosed in envelopes addressed to the defendants at St. Louis. The notices and envelopes were produced in court and identified by the notary as those forwarded by him from St. Genevieve; but there were no marks upon them indicating that they had ever passed through the post-office. The defendants testify that they received the notices in St. Louis, June 8th, fifteen days after the protest; that they were delivered to them by a party not known to them, but who was connected with a steamboat running between St. Genevieve and St. Louis, and who was not a mail carrier; that they had been unable to find this party, although diligent search had been made for him, as was testified. The defendants then offered to put in evidence his declarations made at the time of the delivery of the notices, which, on objection, the court excluded, and the defendants excepted. This is the only point presented for consideration.
The defendants insist that the excluded evidence should have been received as constituting a part of the res gestæ. Treating the declarations as verbal acts connected with the delivery of the notices, they might possibly be regarded as res gestæ, or a thing done in connection with that particular fact. But that is not the point. The principal fact material to this cause is not the delivery, but the forwarding of the notices. If they were duly forwarded from St. Genevieve, that is sufficient; and that was the point of inquiry. In order to make the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Webb v. Salisbury
... ... There was no failure for the reason the evidence shows that ... Clinton paid to the Land Bank, for the plaintiffs, $ 2500 ... Webb admitted that the $ 500 note was a commission note, ... gestae ... Redmond v. St. Ry. Co., 185 Mo. 1; ... Mathews v. Coalter, 9 Mo. 705; Merchants Bank v ... Berthold, 45 Mo. 527 ... Manard & Schwimmer and Walter H. Maloney ... ...
-
State v. Christian
...with the killing. It is not shown to be a part of the res gestae, and, hence, is inadmissible. 1 Greenleaf Ev., Sec. 108; Merchants' Bank v. Berthold, 45 Mo. 527; Brownell v. Pacific R. R., 47 Mo. 239; Harriman v. Stowe, 57 Mo. 93. Again, the declarations and conduct of a defendant, not on ......
-
State v. Swain
...one. Nor was there any connection shown between the principal acts done and the declarations offered in evidence, in Merchants Bank v. Berthold, 45 Mo. 527, and held inadmissible. In the case at bar, had the shot spoken of by Lisle been fired at the time Marshall and Hale were going up the ......