Moore v. Candell

• Decision Date: 31 July 1848
• Parties: MOORE v. CANDELL.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

11 Mo. 614

MOORE

v.CANDELL.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

July Term, 1848.

APPEAL FROM PLATTE CIRCUIT COURT.

LEONARD, for Appellant.

1. From the proof it is quite evident that upon the sale of the mule, Candell took the note and money in satisfaction of the price. Admitting that he was not bound to accept his own paper, yet if he did so, he is bound by the act, and cannot get the relief the justice and the court administered to him in this case, take the note at its market value and thereby extinguish his liability for three times the amount; and compel Moore to pay him in money the balance of the price of the mule. The only difference between the judgment of the justice and that of the Circuit Court is, that the former only allowed Moore a credit for what the payee actually got for the note, six or seven dollars, while the Circuit Court allowed Moore a credit for about $10, the nominal price the payee sold the note for. 2. The evidence given and objected to was wholly irrelevant, no matter what the market value of the note was if the plaintiff accepted it in payment, he took it at its nominal value, and if it (the note) was considered as a set-off, the defendant had a right to the same measure of value. The amount in controversy is very small; but the poor have the same right to demand that their cases shall be decided by the rules of law, that the rich have.

MCBRIDE, J.

This was an action of assumpsit by Candell against Moore, instituted before a justice of the peace of Platte county, where the plaintiff on a trial before the justice, had a judgment for $26 75, and on a trial there before the judge, had a judgment for $22 50, when Moore moved for a new trial, which the court refused, and he excepted and appealed to this court. From the evidence as preserved in the bill of exceptions it appears, that Candell, the plaintiff, sold Moore a mule for $40, and that Moore at the time of the purchase offered Candell six or seven dollars in money and Candell's own note for about $30, admitted by Candell to be just, and which had been regularly assigned to Moore. It appears that Candell took the money, and a witness who was present, thinks he also took the note, although he objected to doing so at the time. The plaintiff proved on the cross-examination of a witness, who was the defendant's immediate neighbor, that he gave an account for $10 for the note and transferred it to the defendant for a note upon an insolvent. This testimony was objected to by the defendant,...