Willis v. Reed

• Decision Date: 16 December 1916
• Docket Number: No. 1909.,1909.
• Parties: WILLIS v. REED.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

190 S.W. 377

WILLIS v. REED.

No. 1909.

Springfield Court of Appeals. Missouri.

December 16, 1916.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Butler County; John P. Foard, Judge.

Action by Mrs. Thomas Willis against J. A. Reed. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Mozley & Green and L. M. Henson, both of Poplar Bluff, for appellant. Herbert H. Freer and Hugh E. Tyson, both of Poplar Bluff, for respondent.

STURGIS, J.

This is a suit on two promissory notes given at the same time, by the same parties, and for the same consideration as the note involved in Farmers' Savings Bank v. Reed, 192 Mo. App. 344, 180 S. W. 1002. In that case we held that a promissory note, part of the consideration of which was the sale and transfer or attempted transfer of an unexpired saloon license, was not void ipso facto, but was valid and not subject to such defense in the hands of a bona fide purchaser for value and without notice. We distinguished that case from Sawyer v. Sanderson, 113 Mo. App. 233, 88 S. W. 151, in that the latter case was between the original parties.

The plaintiff here likewise makes the claim that she acquired the notes now sued on for value, in good faith, before maturity and without any knowledge of the consideration being tainted with illegality. The case was tried by the court sitting as a jury, who found for plaintiff on this issue and entered judgment accordingly. The question now presented in one of fact only, and we cannot weigh the evidence. The defendant's contention is that plaintiff, being the mother of one of the parties to the illegal transaction as to the saloon license, is conclusively shown to have had knowledge of that transaction tainting the note with illegality, and that she took the note from her son for the purpose of evading that defense. We do not so find. The plaintiff testified that she had previously loaned her son money expecting him to pay her out of the profits of the saloon business, and when he sold out and got these notes she took the same in part payment of his valid indebtedness to her. There is little reason to question the son's indebtedness to her, and the notes show an indorsement to her at the time she claims to have acquired same. She says that the notes have been in her possession and have been her property ever since the date of this indorsement. That there was any agreement to sell and transfer the saloon license along with the stock and fixtures is denied by the seller, and, if such was the...