Smalley v. Hale

• Decision Date: 31 October 1865
• Parties: GEO. C. SMALLEY, Plaintiff in Error, v. EDWARD HALE, Defendant in Error.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

37 Mo. 102

GEO. C. SMALLEY, Plaintiff in Error,

v.EDWARD HALE, Defendant in Error.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

October Term, 1865.

Error to St. Louis Court of Common Pleas.

Glover & Shepley, for plaintiff in error.

Knox & Smith, for defendant in error

HOLMES, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

This was a suit upon promissory notes. The defence relied upon on the trial was that the notes had been obtained by fraud and misrepresentation. The instructions which were given on either side placed the case before the jury on this defencc alone. The evidence furnished an ample basis for such instructions. On the part of the defendant the jury was told in effect that if the payee obtained the notes from the defendant by means of false representations which induced him to execute the notes, or by knowingly concealing material and substantial facts, unknown to the defendant, which, if they had been known to him, would have prevented him from giving the notes, they wold find for the defendant; and that the transfer of the notes by the payee did not prevent the defendant from setting up his defence against the plaintiff. And on the part of the plaintiff, the jury were iustructed that if the notes were made in consideration of 300 shares of Ætna mining stock, without any concealment or misrepresentation of material facts, they would find for the plaintiff, whether the stock was of any value or not. The effect of these instructions, taken together, was that if the notes had been obtained by fraud, either in making false representations ( suggestio falsi), or in fraudulently concealing material facts ( suppressio veri), the defence was good, otherwise not. The matter of fact which the jury was to determine was thus clearly and definitely laid before the jury under correct rules of law governing that issue. (Montgomery v. Tipton, 1 Mo. 496; Buford v. Byrd, 8 Mo. 240; Casey v. Smales, 4 Mo. 77; McAdams v. Cates, 24 Mo. 223; Barron v. Alexander, 27 Mo. 530; Fleming v. Slocum, 18 J. R. 403; Edwds. Bills, 326.)

Some of the instructions which were refused for the plaintiff may have contained correct propositions of law upon the facts proposed in them, but in the issue of fact upon which the case was submitted to the jury, they were immaterial, and need not be particularly noticed here.

The plaintiff objected to the admission of certain parts of the evidence relating to the conduct of the payee; the conditions and affairs of the Ætna Mining Company; the insolvency of...