Moore v. Hutchinson
| Decision Date | 30 April 1879 |
| Citation | 69 Mo. 429 |
| Parties | MOORE v. HUTCHINSON et al., Appellants. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Moniteau Circuit Court.--HON. G. W. MILLER, Judge.
The plaintiff testified that he loaned the money to the defendants, they agreed to pay him one per cent. a month, and the note was drawn that way--he scratched the word “one” out and by so doing he thought it would be an advantage to them.
Moore & Williams for appellants.
Edmund Burke for respondent.
Action before a justice of the peace on a promissory note.
I. It was perfectly competent for defendants to file their plea of non est factum for the first time in the circuit court, since the trial in the circuit court was de novo. Phillips v. Bliss, 32 Mo. 427.
II. The payee of the note had no right to alter the note in the slightest particular, without the consent of all who were interested; and such unwarranted alteration rendered the note null in his hands, no matter how pure his motives in making the alteration. Haskell v. Champion, 30 Mo. 136; Evans v. Foreman, 60 Mo. 449; Capital Bank v. Armstrong, 62 Mo. 59; German Bank v. Dunn, 62 Mo. 79.
III. The judgment recovered by plaintiff cannot stand, because there is no evidence to support it; his own testimony showing that he altered the note by striking out the word “one,” which rate of interest the note bore per month. And the motion for a new trial called attention to the fact that the verdict was contrary to the evidence. Under such circumstances this court interferes, regardless of the declarations of law given, or if none were given. Hart v. Leavenworth, 11 Mo. 629; Robbins v. Phillips, 68 Mo. 100. Judgment reversed.
All concur.
REVERSED.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Lankford's Estate
...although no instructions are asked or given. State ex rel. v. Guinotte, 156 Mo. loc. cit. 521, 57 S. W. 281, 50 L. R. A. 787; Moore v. Hutchinson, 69 Mo. 429; Wilson v. Albert, 89 Mo. 544, 1 S. W. 209; May v. Crawford, 150 Mo. loc. cit. 528, 51 S. W. 693; Garrett v. Greenwell, 92 Mo. 125, 4......
-
Mo. Finance Corp. v. Roos et al., 21846.
...to stand upon, the exact contract be made, and no one, not even a court, can change it in any respect. [Bank v. Dunn, 62 Mo. 79; Moore v. Hutchinson, 69 Mo. 429; Bank v. Fricke, 75 Mo. 178; Morrison v. Garth, 78 Mo. l.c. 427; Hord v. Tauhman, 79 Mo. l.c. 102; Evans v. Foreman, 60 Mo. 449; K......
-
Missouri Finance Corp. v. Roos
... ... extinguish the liability of a guarantor. 28 C. J. 996; ... Western National Bank v. Wittman, 31 Cal.App. 615; ... Slaughter v. Moore, 17 Tex. Civ. App. 233, 42 S.W ... 372; 28 C. J. 1001; 12 R. C. L. 1085; Ford v. Beard, ... 31 Mo. 459; Peoples Bank v. Smith, 263 S.W. 475 ... contract he made, and no one, not even a court, can change it ... in any respect. [ Bank v. Dunn, 62 Mo. 79; Moore ... v. Hutchinson, 69 Mo. 429; Bank v. Fricke, 75 ... Mo. 178; Morrison v. Garth, 78 Mo. 434; Hord v ... Taubman, 79 Mo. 101; Evans v. Foreman, 60 Mo ... ...
-
Hay v. Bankers Life Company
... ... defendant-respondent seeks to raise the question for the ... first time on appeal in this court. Fidelity, etc., Co ... v. Moore, ___ Mo., ___, 217 S.W. 286; First Nat ... Bank v. Security, etc., Life Ins. Co., ___ Mo. ___, 222 ... S.W. 832; Dolan v. Royal Neighbors, ... court, as the error is deemed to be one of law. 4 Corpus ... Juris, sec. 2854, page 881-2; Moore v. Hutchinson, ... 69 Mo. 429; Schmeiding v. Ewing, 57 Mo. 78; ... Sandige v. Hill, 76 Mo.App. 540; Blackwell v ... Adams, 28 Mo.App. 61. (7) The ... ...