Workman v. Campbell

• Decision Date: 31 July 1874
• Citation: 57 Mo. 53
• Parties: SAMUEL WORKMAN, Appellant, v. COLLINS C. CAMPBELL, Respondent.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

57 Mo. 53

SAMUEL WORKMAN, Appellant,

v.COLLINS C. CAMPBELL, Respondent.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

July Term, 1874.

Appeal from Johnson Circuit Court.

Crittenden & Cockrell, for Appellant.

Phillips & Vest, for Respondent.

WAGNER, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

A statement of this case will be found in 46 Mo., 305 when it was reversed, having been decided in favor of the defendant upon demurrer, the court being of the opinion that if he had a defense it should have been taken by answer.

When the case went back to the Circuit Court, the defendant filed his answer under oath, denying that he had executed the writing sued upon, stating that the original subscription was for fifty dollars, and that the sum of two hundred dollars for which the action was brought was not subscribed by him. He further alleges, that his name was obtained by false and fraudulent representation; that the subscription was for an illegal and corrupt purpose, and that there was a combination on the part of the plaintiff and others to cheat and defraud him. The case was submitted to the court without a jury, and after hearing the evidence a verdict was found for the defendant. There was evidence on each side tending to prove the issue presented, and therefore, the only question for us to determine, is, whether the court properly declared the law.

The first instruction asked by and given for the plaintiff, was in accordance with the law as laid down by this court when the case was here before. The second and third instructions were refused.

The second states that it is admitted, that the defendant signed his name for $50 to the paper, and that the subscription shows $200 opposite his name; and if the court believe from the weight of evidence that the defendant did subscribe opposite his name $200; or if the court believe from the weight of evidence that defendant did not subscribe opposite his name $200, but a less sum, and further believes that afterwards, said amount was raised to $200 and that that fact was made known and stated to him, and that he was requested to pay that sum, and promised to pay it, then that was on his part a ratification of any alteration or change made and was binding upon him.

The third instruction declares, that defendant having signed his name to the subscription paper and there being placed opposite his name the sum of $200, the presumption of law, is, that he placed said sum opposite to his name, and if that was not the true sum it devolved...