Smith v. Ferry
| Decision Date | 31 October 1878 |
| Citation | 69 Mo. 142 |
| Parties | SMITH, Appellant, v. FERRY. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Vernon Circuit Court.--HON. J. D. PARKINSON, Judge.
This was a suit commenced June 24th, 1875, on a promissory note executed May 13th, 1862. On the back of the note was this indorsement: “August 5th, 1865, credit the within note $25.” Defendant pleaded the statute of limitations. Plaintiff relied upon the indorsement to prove partial payment and acknowledgment of the debt within ten years. There was no other evidence of the alleged payment. Defendant insisted that the indorsement appeared to have been tampered with, and that its date had been altered from 1863 to 1865. The plaintiff prayed the court to declare the law as follows: 1. “The presumption is that the indorsement was made at the time it purports to bear date, and the burden of proving the date to be false lies with the defendant.” The court refused the prayer. There was a finding and judgment for the defendant, and the plaintiff appealed.
John R. Walker for appellant.
Scott & Stone for respondent.
In general indorsements made upon promissory notes are presumed to have been made at the time such indorsements bear date. Horton v. Bayne, 52 Mo. 531. If, however, there be any thing in the indorsement indicative of alteration, the usual presumption ceases, and it then devolves upon the holder of the paper to explain that which is apparently suspicious. Mathews v. Coalter,9 Mo. 696; Patterson v. Fagan, 38 Mo. 70: 1 Greenl. Ev., § 564 and cases cited. For this reason no error occurred in the refusal of plaintiff's first declaration of law. The case of Carter, Adm. of English, v. Carter, 44 Mo. 195, by no means militates against the herein expressed views, and the judgment is affirmed.
All concur.
AFFIRMED.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kansas City Granite & Monument Co. v. Jordan
...for proof from the party producing the instrument of its genuineness. 3 Ency. Law & Prac. 476, 478; Paramore v. Lindsey, 63 Mo. 63; Smith v. Forry, 69 Mo. 142; Stilwell Patton, 108 Mo. 352; Powell v. Banks, 146 Mo. 620; State v. Chick, 146 Mo. 645; Kelley v. Thuey, 143 Mo. 422; Jackson v. O......
-
Orr v. Rode
... ... mortgage. Price v. Courtney, 87 Mo. 387; Price ... v. Estell, 87 Mo. 378; Bloomer v. Waldron, 3 ... Hill, 361; Ferry v. Laible, 31 N.J.Eq. 567; ... Hoyt v. Jaques, 129 Mass. 286; 1 Jones on Mortgages ... [3 Ed.] sec. 129. (2) Even if the power to sell ordinarily ... and mortgage were given, Hunt v. Rousmainer, 8 ... Wheat. 174; Cherry v. Greene, 115 Ill. 591; ... Bonney v. Smith, 17 Ill. 531; Porter v ... Schofield, 55 Mo. 61. A substantial compliance with the ... power is all that is required in trusts of this character ... ...
-
Berryman v. Becker
... ... (3) In this State there is no presumption that the ... indorsement of payment on a promissory note was made at the ... time it bears date. Smith v. Brinkley, 151 Mo.App ... 494, 132 S.W. 302. (4) It is not sufficient to take the case ... out of the statute, that the claim should be proved ... apparently have that effect. The contrary was ruled in ... Carter v. Carter, 44 Mo. 195, and in Smith v ... Ferry, 69 Mo. 142, where the court said: "The ... general rule is that an indorsement of payment on a ... promissory note is presumed to have been made ... ...
-
State ex rel. v. McKay, 31296.
...Bank v. Phillips, 162 S.W. 721; Koch v. Sheppard, 193 S.W. 602; Stillwell v. Patton, 108 Mo. 360; Paramore v. Lindsey, 63 Mo. 63; Smith v. Ferry, 69 Mo. 142. (c) Where the changes are not such as to excite suspicion, the presumption is that the changes in question were made either before or......