Waugh v. McCormick
| Decision Date | 07 April 1936 |
| Docket Number | No. 23223.,23223. |
| Citation | 93 S.W.2d 77 |
| Parties | WAUGH v. McCORMICK. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, St. Louis County; Robert W. McElhinney, Judge.
"Not to be published in State Reports."
Action by Alice Waugh against James Lee McCormick. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Raleigh McCormick, of St. Louis, for appellant.
Levinson, Boisseau & Levinson, of St. Louis, for respondent.
This is a suit on a promissory note brought by the payee against the maker thereof. The cause was tried before the court, a jury having been waived, and judgment was rendered for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
Appellant, "for brevity," has not set out the pleadings in his abstract of the record, but contents himself with the statement that the petition alleges "that the defendant, at St. Louis, Missouri, for value received, executed and delivered to plaintiff his six per cent demand negotiable note, dated June 14, 1926, for one thousand and eighty dollars ($1080), payable at National Bank of Commerce, St. Louis, Missouri; that payment was demanded, but nothing had been paid on the note." The abstract recites that the answer, which was not verified by affidavit, admitted the execution of the note, and denied generally all other allegations in the petition; and in addition contains allegations purporting to constitute affirmative defenses, and that the reply was a general denial.
We deem it advisable to set out in full the bill of exceptions as it appears in appellant's abstract of the record:
Thereafter the court entered the following finding and decree:
The question presented for our determination on this appeal is whether or not a prima facie case was made by plaintiff.
The record discloses that the answer of defendant admitted the execution of the note sued on in plaintiff's petition. At the trial plaintiff introduced the note in evidence without objection, and thereupon rested. The authorities uniformly hold that under such circumstances plaintiff has made out a prima facie case. Holmes v. Farris, 97 Mo.App. 305, 71 S.W. 116; State Bank of Freeport v. Cape Girardeau & C. R. Co., 172 Mo.App. 662, 155 S.W. 1111; Davidson v. Spitscaufsky (Mo. App.) 182 S.W. 106; General Elec. Co. v. Interstate Elec. Co. (Mo.App.) 204 S.W. 933; Marquand v. Branum (Mo.App.) 286 S.W. 443; Kugman v. Donnell (Mo.App.) 271 S.W. 535.
There is no merit in the contention of the appellant...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Arthur Fels Bond & Mortgage Co. v. Pollock
...note established a prima facie case in favor of the plaintiff. Secs. 965, 2653, R. S. 1929; Moore v. Dickerson, 137 S.W.2d 495; Waugh v. McCormick, 93 S.W.2d 77; North Side Finance Co. v. Sparr, 78 S.W.2d 892. Neither the facts pleaded in the answer nor those established by the evidence wer......
-
Vandivort v. Dodds Truck Line, Inc.
...received in evidence plaintiffs did not rest as they might have done (cf. Duncan v. Black, Mo.App., 324 S.W.2d 483, 484; Waugh v. McCormick, Mo.App., 93 S.W.2d 77, 78) but, in anticipatory disaffirmation and refutation of the pleaded defense, adduced testimony showing (so plaintiffs here in......
-
Wolf v. Wuelling
... ... Northside Finance Co. v. Sparr, 78 S.W.2d 892; ... Peoples State Bank v. Hunter, 264 S.W. 54; Cahn ... v. Miller, 106 S.W.2d 495; Waugh v. McCormick, ... 93 S.W.2d 77. (a) Where the facts as to the delivery of the ... note were undisputed their legal effect was simply a question ... ...
-
Alropa Corp. v. Smith
... ... a verdict for the plaintiff, and that the court erred in ... refusing to submit said cause to the jury." Sec. 1116, ... R. S. Mo. 1939. Waugh v. McCormick, (Mo. App.) 93 ... S.W. 2d 77. Section 3345, R. S. Mo. 1939. Thompson v ... McCune, 333 Mo. 758, 63 S.W. 2d 41. North Side ... ...