Williams v. Barnes
| Decision Date | 26 June 1923 |
| Docket Number | No. 3247.,3247. |
| Citation | 215 Mo. App. 354,253 S.W. 807 |
| Parties | WILLIAMS v. BARNES et al. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, New Madrid County; Sterling H. McCarty, Judge.
Action by J. F. Williams against Gail Barnes and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
A. M. Spradling, of Cape Girardeau, for appellant.
Gallivan & Finch, of New Madrid, for respondents.
Plaintiff sued the defendants on a note for $500. Defendants pleaded payment. On a trial in the circuit court the verdict of the jury was for the defendants, judgment followed in accordance with the verdict, and plaintiff appeals, assigning as error: First, that there is no evidence to support the verdict; second, that it was error to give respondents' instructions. There are two other assignments, but they go to the same questions raised in the first two grounds of error.
A recital of the evidence will disclose that there was sufficient evidence to submit the defense of payment. The facts disclose that plaintiff sold a farm to defendant Barnes, taking back notes secured by deed of trust. Defendant Barnes and others also executed the note sued on, which was not included in the mortgage. Defense was made on the notes given and included in the deed of trust. By agreement the defendant Barnes executed a warranty deed to plaintiff, reconveying the land to him, the consideration being placed in the deed at $6,000. The land was originally bought by defendant Barnes from plaintiff for $5,400, a federal loan of $2,500 was procured by plaintiff, and that turned over to defendant Barnes. These facts are conceded, or at least not in dispute.
The question of fact at issue was the consideration in the deed reconveying the property; that is to say, Was plaintiff to surrender all the notes which he held against defendant Barnes, or merely the ones secured by the mortgage, which did not include this note sued on? Plaintiff's evidence tends to show that this note was not in the deal, while defendant's evidence is that it was. While there are some circumstances which do not entirely corroborate the defendant's theory of the case, we cannot declare, as a matter of law, that there is not evidence in the record from which a jury could reasonably find that the note was paid as a part of the consideration for defendant's reconveying the property to plaintiff. Appellate courts must leave disputed points of fact to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Schneider v. Dubinsky Realty Co.
...(3) In considering the question of error in instructions it is settled law that all instructions must be read together. Williams v. Barnes, 215 Mo.App. 354, 253 S.W. 807; Baxter v. Lbr. Co., 186 Mo.App. 358; Jenkins v. Mo. State Life Ins. Co., 69 S.W.2d 666; Van Horn v. Union Fuel & Ice Co.......
-
St. Louis v. Turner, 30742.
...v. Pehl, 240 S.W. 278; Doody v. California Woolen Mills, 216 S.W. 531; Hallender v. Jefferson Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 218 S.W. 418; Williams v. Barnes, 253 S.W. 807. (a) The sufficiency of evidence cannot be complained of on appeal where not complained of in the motion for a new trial. Brun v. ......
-
City of St. Louis v. Turner
...v. Pehl, 240 S.W. 278; Doody v. California Woolen Mills, 216 S.W. 531; Hallender v. Jefferson Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 218 S.W. 418; Williams v. Barnes, 253 S.W. 807. (a) sufficiency of evidence cannot be complained of on appeal where not complained of in the motion for a new trial. Brun v. Dume......
-
Tillotson v. The Independent Breweries Company, a Corp.
... ... (1) The ... verdict found by the jury on conflicting evidence is ... conclusive on the facts in dispute. Williams v ... Barnes, 253 S.W. 807; Ormsby v. A. B. C. Fireproof ... Warehouse Co., 253 S.W. 491; Karte v. J. R. Brockman ... Mfg. Co., 247 S.W ... ...