Stephens v. Spiers

• Citation: 25 Mo. 386
• Parties: STEPHENS, Plaintiff in Error, v. SPIERS, Defendant in Error.
• Decision Date: 31 July 1857
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Missouri

25 Mo. 386

STEPHENS, Plaintiff in Error,

v.SPIERS, Defendant in Error.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

July Term, 1857.

1. Though a promissory note given by way of compromise of a doubtful right is valid and binding, it is a good defense that it was obtained through a fraudulent suppression of the truth.

Error to Boone Circuit Court.

This was a suit upon two promissory notes executed by defendant, Zephaniah Spiers, in favor of plaintiff, one for $332.96, dated November 8th, 1855, payable December 25th, 1855, the other of the same date for $300, payable January 1st, 1856.

The defendant in his answer admitted the execution of the notes, but averred that they were executed by him under a mistake of his rights, and because of deceitful representations made to him by the plaintiff, Stephens; that on the 7th day of June, 1847, he, defendant, together with George S. Waters, and others, executed and delivered to plaintiff a note for $1,000; that afterwards, for the purpose of securing this note, and another note for $929.12, executed in favor of plaintiff by M. R. & R. G. Waters and George S. Waters, George S. Waters mortgaged to plaintiff, on the 25th of April, 1848, a certain tract of 240 acres of land in Boone county, Missouri; that various payments were made on said notes, amounting to near six hundred dollars; that in September, 1850, while defendant and his co-obligor, George S. Waters, were in California, the plaintiff sold said mortgaged lands at private sale and in fee simple for $1,500 to Dr. Turner, and received from him, Turner, $1,008 in money, and his (Turner's) note for $500, payable in twelve months, which last note he, plaintiff, has collected; that he has given no credits on said notes for any part of the sum so paid; that on the 10th of May, 1851, he, Stephens, after he had sold to Turner, and while Waters and defendant were in California, instituted proceedings for the foreclosure of the said mortgage; that he obtained judgment of foreclosure, and that said land was sold in the year 1852, and he, Stephens, became the purchaser at the sum of $500; that he, Stephens, well knowing that all, or nearly all, of said notes had been paid, wrongfully and fraudulently instituted suit against defendant on the note for $1,000 which had been discharged as aforesaid, and fraudulently and deceitfully represented to defendant that said note was unpaid, and by such false, deceitful and fraudulent misrepresentation induced the defendant to execute to plaintiff the two notes sued on in the present action, for which defendant has received no value whatever; that at the time of the execution of the said mortgage by George S. Waters, Waters had been responsible to plaintiff for the said $1,000 note, and that plaintiff had accepted him, Waters, as the payer of said note; that the note was procured by fraud, and was without consideration.

There was evidence adduced tending to support the allegations contained in the answer. The court, at the instance of the plaintiff, instructed the jury as follows: “1. If the jury find from the evidence that there was an unsettled debt existing between the plaintiff and the defendant, and that the notes sued on were executed in settlement or compromise of such debt, and that in consideration of the execution of said notes Stephens dismissed a suit which he had brought, and was then pending, for the collection of the debt aforesaid, they will find for plaintiff the amount of said notes and interest, unless such settlement or compromise was procured by fraud or misrepresentation on the part of plaintiff. 2. If the jury find from the evidence that plaintiff, at the request of defendant, dismissed a suit which he had brought against him, and that the notes sued on were given in consideration thereof, then, although there may have been no foundation for such suit, they will find for plaintiff, unless such arrangement was procured by fraudulent representations by plaintiff.”

The court, at the instance of the defendant, further instructed the jury as follows: “1. If the jury believe from the evidence that the notes sued upon were executed by defendant without any consideration, they must find for the defendant. 2. If the jury believe from the evidence that the plaintiff agreed to receive from George Waters, in consideration of the note of $1,000, executed by defendant and others, a mortgage upon his land, and did receive such mortgage pursuant to such agreement, and accepted the same in discharge of Spiers' obligation, and that plaintiff afterwards obtained from defendant the notes sued upon by misrepresentations, or by omission to give the proper credits or release on the $1,000 note, and defendant was deceived as to his rights, and executed said notes without consideration and in mistake of his rights, they should find for defendant. 3. If the jury believe from the evidence that the defendant executed the $1,000 note, given in evidence, to plaintiff for goods purchased by defendant from him, and that afterwards defendant sold the goods so purchased to George Waters and others, and that plaintiff agreed to release defendant and receive George Waters or any one else for said note, and did accept other security for such debt, promising to release said defendant, they should find for the defendant, unless they believe that the notes sued on were executed by defendant for a good and valuable consideration other than the said $1,000 note. 4. If the jury believe that defendant, at the time of executing the notes sued on, was not indebted to plaintiff, and was induced by plaintiff to execute the same by false calculations of his rights, and...