Sexton v. North Missouri Cent. Ry. Co.
| Decision Date | 08 May 1917 |
| Docket Number | No. 14617.,14617. |
| Citation | 194 S.W. 1081 |
| Parties | SEXTON v. NORTH MISSOURI CENT. RY. CO. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Geo. C. Hitchcock, Judge.
"Not to be officially published."
Action by T. F. Sexton against the North Missouri Central Railway Company. From an adverse judgment on the first count of his petition, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Arthur G. Moseley and W. W. Herron, both of St. Louis, for appellant. N. T. Gentry, of Columbia, for respondent.
Plaintiff's petition herein is in two counts. The first count alleges that on March 12, 1910, defendant corporation, for value received, executed and delivered to plaintiff its certain promissory note for the sum of $3,000, payable to plaintiff or his order, on demand, bearing interest at the rate of 6 per cent. per annum; that defendant has failed and refused to pay the same or any part thereof, though often requested, "to plaintiff's damage in the sum of thirty-five hundred ($3,500.00) dollars." The second count avers that plaintiff was employed by defendant in the capacity of secretary, for which defendant promised and agreed to pay him at the rate of $150 per month; that he performed said services for defendant for the months of June, July, and August, 1910, whereby the defendant became indebted to him in the sum of $450; that defendant has failed and refused to pay the same, or any part thereof, though often requested, "to plaintiff's damage in the sum of five hundred ($500.00) dollars."
The answer to the first count first contains a general denial. It is then averred that plaintiff purchased of defendant 30 shares of its capital stock, for which plaintiff paid defendant the sum of $3,000; that thereafter, to wit, on June 30, 1910, plaintiff sought to sell the said stock to defendant, and "induced the defendant, in payment thereof, to execute and deliver to him, as and of the date of March 1, 1910, the said note sued upon"; that there was no other consideration for the execution of said note, and that defendant was not then indebted to plaintiff in any sum and is not now so indebted to plaintiff; and that the attempted repurchase of said stock by defendant was and is null and void. It is further alleged that at the time of the execution and delivery of the note plaintiff, being then an officer of defendant company, knew that defendant was not indebted to him in the sum of $3,000, or any other sum, and that the execution of said note was wholly without consideration. The answer to the second count of the petition is a general denial, coupled with allegations to the effect that plaintiff rendered no services to defendant, and that defendant is not indebted to plaintiff in any sum...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sylvester Watts Smyth Realty Co. v. American Surety Company of New York
...Kansas City v. O'Connor, 82 Mo.App. 655; Orpheum Theatre Co. v. Brokerage Co., 197 Mo.App. 661; City v. Bank, 74 Mo.App. 365; Sexton v. Ry. Co., 194 S.W. 1081; Hanlan v. Tr. Co., 251 Mo. 575; State ex inf. v. Athletic Club, 261 Mo. 599; State ex rel. v. Murphy, 180 Mo. 10. (4) The contract ......
-
State ex rel. Silverforb v. Smith
... ... SILVERFORB v. SMITH et al., Judges No. 30953Supreme Court of Missouri, First DivisionSeptember 5, 1931 ... ... Rehearing ... dollars and one ($ 558.01) cent due said Margaret Townes as ... such heir; that the Probate Court had ... v. Holschlag, 144 ... Mo. 253, 45 S.W. 1101, 66 Am. St. Rep. 417; Sexton v ... North Mo. Cent. Ry. Co. (Mo. App.) 194 S.W. 1081. It ... follows ... ...
-
State v. Smith
...the record will be considered. Mo. K. & E. Ry. Co. v. Holschlag, 144 Mo. 253, 45 S. W. 1101, 66 Am. St. Rep. 417; Sexton v. North Mo. Cent. Ry. Co. (Mo. App.) 194 S. W. 1081. It follows that the motion to dismiss will be overruled, but this court is limited in its review, so far as plaintif......
-
City of Bellefontaine Neighbors v. J. J. Kelley Realty & Bldg. Co.
...or recovery under those obligations of the contract which the City could require before approving the plat. See Sexton v. North Missouri Cent. R. Co., Mo.App., 194 S.W. 1081(2). We also reject Surety's contention that it would violate the parol evidence rule to impose liability under the bo......