Meyers v. Van Wagoner

CourtMissouri Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtADAMS
CitationMeyers v. Van Wagoner, 56 Mo. 115 (Mo. 1874)
Decision Date31 March 1874
PartiesJOHN MEYERS, Respondent, v. ADALINE H. VAN WAGONER et al., Appellants.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court.

ADAMS, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

This was an action in the nature of a bill in chancery to subject the separate property of the defendant, Adaline H. Van Wagoner, to the payment of a promissory note which she had executed and delivered to the plaintiff.

The petition alleges that she is the owner of certain real estate situate in the City of St. Louis, and described in the petition, and that it is held by the defendant, John M. Krum, in trust for her sole and separate use; that she and the defendant Garret S. Van Wagoner are husband and wife, and were so at the time of the execution of the note; that she executed and delivered the note in suit, and intended thereby to bind and did bind her separate estate for its payment, and prays judgment for the amount of the note, and that it be enforced against her separate property described in the petition. The answer denies the material facts alleged in the petition, and the defendant Adaline H. Van Wagoner in a separate answer alleged that the note in suit was made without any consideration, and that it was merely voluntary, and that she did not bind nor intend to bind her separate property for its payment. The plaintiff by replication denied the new matter contained in the answer. The plaintiff had judgment at Special Term, which was affirmed by the General Term, and the defendants have appealed to this court.

The facts as developed on the trial appear to be; that the plaintiff held the note of Adaline H. Van Wagoner's son by a former marriage, for loaned money; that this son was wholly insolvent; that the plaintiff applied to Mrs. Van Wagoner to assume the debt, which she did by executing her own note for the same, and taking up and destroying her son's note; that plaintiff...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
21 cases
  • Lindell Real Estate Company v. Lindell
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • December 7, 1897
    ... ... [13 Ed.], ... sec. 1368; Whitesides v. Cannon, 23 Mo. 457; ... Turner v. Shaw, 96 Mo. 22; Sprague v ... Rooney, 104 Mo. 349; Meyers v. Van Wagoner, 56 ... Mo. 115. (7) Courts of equity never assist those seeking ... equitable relief on the ground of fraud, who, having acquired ... ...
  • Ruhe v. Buck
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • July 9, 1894
    ... ... 412; Lincoln ... v. Rowe, 64 Mo. 138. (3) The law has never authorized an ... attachment against a maried woman's property. Meyers ... v. Van Wagner, 56 Mo. 115; Beal v. Morgan, 49 ... Mo. 48; Schuster v. Schuster, 93 Mo. 438; Turner ... v. Shaw, 96 Mo. 22 and 522; ... ...
  • Davis v. Smith
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • October 31, 1881
    ...Bank v. Taylor, 62 Mo. 338; Lincoln v. Rowe, 51 Mo. 571; Morrison v. Thistle, 67 Mo. 596; Staley v. Ivory, 65 Mo. 74; Meyers v. Van Wagoner, 56 Mo. 115. Every material allegation of plaintiff's petition, not denied by the answer of defendants is, for the purposes of this action, to be taken......
  • Farmers Bk. of Billings v. Schmidt
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • February 17, 1930
    ...31 Mo. 428. The surrender of a note is a good consideration for the making of another. Zuendt v. Doerner, 101 Mo. App. 528; Meyers v. Van Wagoner, 56 Mo. 115, 116. A consideration need not be of any real value to the promissor. It is sufficient if it is any detriment or inconvenience to the......
  • Get Started for Free