Moore v. McHaney, No. 13924.

CourtCourt of Appeal of Missouri (US)
Writing for the CourtAllen
Citation191 Mo. App. 686,178 S.W. 258
Docket NumberNo. 13924.
Decision Date02 July 1915
PartiesMOORE v. McHANEY.
178 S.W. 258
191 Mo. App. 686
MOORE
v.
McHANEY.
No. 13924.
St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.
July 2, 1915.

[178 S.W. 259]

Appeal from Circuit Court, Dunklin County; W. S. C. Walker, Judge.

Action by C. F. Moore against J. P. MeHaney. Judgment for plaintiff in the circuit court on appeal from a justice of the peace, and defendant appeals: Affirmed on condition that plaintiff remit a portion of the judgment; otherwise to be reversed and remanded.

John T. McKay, of Kennett, for appellant. W. It. Hall, of Kennett, for respondent.

ALLEN, J.


This is an action begun before a justice of the peace to recover from defendant the amount remaining unpaid on a certain note executed by one Hodge to plaintiff. It is averred that defendant, for a valuable consideration, "and for the purpose of extending the time of payment of said note, "contracted to pay the unpaid balance due upon the note, and paid $50 on account thereof, leaving a balance of $129.30 due and unpaid thereupon, and judgment is prayed for said sum, with costs. Plaintiff prevailed before the justice of the peace, and upon defendant's appeal to the circuit court and a trial there de novo before the court and a jury there was a verdict and judgment for plaintiff, and the case is here on defendant's appeal.

One J. B. Hodge was indebted to plaintiff upon a promissory note theretofore executed by him and secured by a chattel mortgage upon a team of mules which he had purchased from plaintiff. Hodge went to work for the defendant, McHaney, apparently early in 1911, using this team of mules in clearing land, building fences, and doing other work upon defendant's property. The note to plaintiff was then overdue, and Hodge testified that when defendant asked him to come upon defendant's place to do this work he told defendant that he would do so if defendant would "go on" this note; that defendant did not agree to do so, and later, about April, 1911, the witness told defendant that plaintiff was demanding the mules, and that he (Hodge) had written plaintiff to come and get them; that nothing further was said until a little later, when defendant told the witness that he had seen plaintiff and had paid the latter $50 on the note and "guaranteed the balance." The $50 thus paid by defendant was money which defendant then owed Hodge.

There is no dispute as to the fact that defendant met plaintiff in "Shelton's store," evidently in April, 1911, paid plaintiff the $50 on the note, and made some further agreement regarding the payment of the balance then remaining due thereon. There is some conflict in the testimony as to just what was the oral agreement respecting the payment of the balance on the note. Plaintiff testified:

"We agreed in Shelton's store that if I would take $50 and leave the team alone that he would pay it [the note], and I taken him for it. Q. He agreed to pay $50 on the note? A. Yes, sir. Q. And did at that time? A. Yes, sir. Q. And agreed to pay the rest? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did

178 S.W. 260

you look to Hodge after that for the money? A. No, sir; I never did ask Hodge for a nickel. * * * Q. And that was the contract between you and McHaney that Hodge was to keep the mules, and that he [McHaney] was to pay for them? A. Yes, sir; that was the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 practice notes
  • Kansas City v. Halvorson, No. 38611.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • December 6, 1943
    ...Comm. Co., 340 Mo. 1078, 102 S.W. (2d) 103; Niederberg v. Golluber, 162 S.W. (2d) 592; Corby v. Taylor, 35 Mo. 447; Moore v. McHaney, 191 Mo. App. 686, 178 S.W. 258; Rumsey v. Ry. Co., 144 Mo. 175, 46 S.W. 144; Wiggins Ferry Co. v. Ry., 128 Mo. 224, 27 S.W. 568; Lober v. Kansas City, 339 Mo......
  • Burk v. Walton, No. 32649.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • September 3, 1935
    ...to show defendant's beneficial interest in the transaction between Burk and Lee, and in the real estate involved. Moore v. McHaney, 191 Mo. App. 686; Brown v. Brown, 47 Mo. 130; Guaranty Trust Co. v. Kohler, 195 Fed. 669. (3) The intention of defendant to escape liability, by confining his ......
  • Bird v. Bilby, No. 13314.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • November 10, 1919
    ...Branham, 104 Mo. App. 480, 79 S. W. 739; Bless v. Jenkins, 129 Mo. 647, 31 S. W. 938; Marks v. Davis, 72 Mo. App. 557; Moore v. McHaney, 191 Mo. App. 686, 697, 178 S. W. 258; Denny v. Brown (Sup.) 193 S. W. In the case of Johnson v. Reading, 36 Mo. App. 306, the contract related to the sale......
  • Piehler v. Kansas City Public Service Co., No. 41356
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • February 13, 1950
    ...window would include such lesser force. Plaintiff's assumption of this additional burden did not prejudice defendant. Moore v. McHaney, 191 Mo.App. 686, 178 S.W. 258, 262; Wilday v. Missouri-K.-T. R. Co., 347 Mo. 275, 147 S.W.2d 431, 434[3, 5]; Burneson v. Zumwalt Co., 349 Mo. 94, 159 S.W.2......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
12 cases
  • Kansas City v. Halvorson, No. 38611.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • December 6, 1943
    ...Comm. Co., 340 Mo. 1078, 102 S.W. (2d) 103; Niederberg v. Golluber, 162 S.W. (2d) 592; Corby v. Taylor, 35 Mo. 447; Moore v. McHaney, 191 Mo. App. 686, 178 S.W. 258; Rumsey v. Ry. Co., 144 Mo. 175, 46 S.W. 144; Wiggins Ferry Co. v. Ry., 128 Mo. 224, 27 S.W. 568; Lober v. Kansas City, 339 Mo......
  • Burk v. Walton, No. 32649.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • September 3, 1935
    ...to show defendant's beneficial interest in the transaction between Burk and Lee, and in the real estate involved. Moore v. McHaney, 191 Mo. App. 686; Brown v. Brown, 47 Mo. 130; Guaranty Trust Co. v. Kohler, 195 Fed. 669. (3) The intention of defendant to escape liability, by confining his ......
  • Bird v. Bilby, No. 13314.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • November 10, 1919
    ...Branham, 104 Mo. App. 480, 79 S. W. 739; Bless v. Jenkins, 129 Mo. 647, 31 S. W. 938; Marks v. Davis, 72 Mo. App. 557; Moore v. McHaney, 191 Mo. App. 686, 697, 178 S. W. 258; Denny v. Brown (Sup.) 193 S. W. In the case of Johnson v. Reading, 36 Mo. App. 306, the contract related to the sale......
  • Piehler v. Kansas City Public Service Co., No. 41356
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • February 13, 1950
    ...window would include such lesser force. Plaintiff's assumption of this additional burden did not prejudice defendant. Moore v. McHaney, 191 Mo.App. 686, 178 S.W. 258, 262; Wilday v. Missouri-K.-T. R. Co., 347 Mo. 275, 147 S.W.2d 431, 434[3, 5]; Burneson v. Zumwalt Co., 349 Mo. 94, 159 S.W.2......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT