Scott v. Scott
Decision Date | 10 November 1924 |
Docket Number | No. 14791.,14791. |
Citation | 265 S.W. 864 |
Parties | SCOTT v. SCOTT. |
Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Grundy County; L. B. Woods, Judge.
"Not to be officially published."
Action by Effie Scott, administratrix, against 0. L. Scott. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
A. L. Kinney, of Green Forest, Ark., and Lesley P. Robinson, of Trenton, for appellant.
R. E. Kavanaugh, of Trenton, for respondent.
The administratrix of the estate of Walter J. Scott, deceased sued to recover, with 6 per cent. interest, the amount due upon a loan of $3,600, alleged to have been made in the year 1915 by decedent to defendant, less a credit of $225, which is alleged to have been paid thereon by defendant in the year 1918.
The defendant, a nephew of decedent, in his answer conceded that the $3,600 was received by him from decedent; but set up that a partnership in the mill and lumber business in Arkansas was entered into by them, and that the $3,300 was paid in purchase from defendant of a one-half interest thereof. The answer further pleaded the five-year statute of limitations (section 1317, R. S. 1919) as a bar to the action; defendant's contention in the evidence being that the so-called credit of $225 was made in the year 1917 instead of 1918. As this suit was instituted September 22, 1922, the date this alleged credit was made is a decisive issue on the question of limitation.
The question of whether the transaction between the uncle and nephew was a loan or merely the purchase of a one-half interest in the defendant's lumber business in Arkansas so as to create a partnership between them, and also the question of whether the credit of $225 was paid in 1917 or 1918, as governing the question whether the cause of action was or was not barred, were duly submitted in the instructions, and the jury found for plaintiff. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Cape County Sav. Bank v. Wilson
...testify concerning its terms. This rule applies as well to partnership agreements as to ordinary contracts. R. S. 1919, sec. 5410; Scott v. Scott, 265 S.W. 864; Denny Brown, 193 S.W. 552. (9) A plaintiff cannot, especially after trial of the cause, after briefs have been submitted and argum......
-
Temm v. Temm
...to it as a partnership are not admissible. Willoughby v. Hildreth, 182 Mo.App. 80, 167 S.W. 639; Denny v. Brown, 193 S.W. 552; Scott v. Scott, 265 S.W. 864. (9) A gift, deceased to respondent, of an interest in deceased's business, must be proven by forceful, clear and conclusive testimony ......
-
Graham v. Stroh
... ... was incompetent under the statute to testify as to a contract ... with the decedent. Sec. 1723, R. S. 1929; Scott v ... Scott, 265 S.W. 864; Moore v. McCutchen, 190 ... S.W. 350; Marshall v. Hall, 200 S.W. 770 ... Shepard ... R. Evans ... ...
-
Grissum v. Reesman
...the acts and declarations of one partner are not admissible until a prima facie case of partnership is established, citing Scott v. Scott, 265 S.W. 864 (Mo.App.1924), and Willoughby v. Hildreth, 182 Mo.App. 80, 167 S.W. 639 (1914). In Scott, there was no showing that the one sought to be ch......