TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Blackburn v. Harrison

Thomas Blackburn and Vinson Benson, Adm'rs of Eden Benson v. James Harrison

Blackburn v. Harrison, 39 Mo. 303 (1866)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Missouri · State Highest Courts
Decided
October 15, 1866
Judges
Holmes, Other
Citations
39 Mo. 303
Headnotes
Contract — Estoppel.— An agreement not to sue for a certain period after the maturity of a note is no bar to an action upon the note — Bridge v. Tierman, 86 Mo. 439.
Summary
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court. I. The allegations in the plaintiffs’ petition as to their being the administrators of Eden Benson, the payee of the note sued on, and of the decease of said Benson, were material ones, as upon the proof of them depended the right of the plaintiffs to maintain this suit; and as they were properly put in issue by the answer, the plaintiffs could not rightly recover without proving such allegations — Wales v. Cham-blin, 19 Mo. 500 ; 2 Greenl. Ev. § 478 ; 1 Wms. Exec. 332; 2 Steph. Nisi Prius, 1904; Thompson v. Donaldson, 3 Esp. 63; 3 Phil. Ev. 662. I. The court below did not err in striking out a portion of defendant’s answer. The portion stricken out does not set up any valid or legal defence to plaintiffs’ cause of action —2 Pars. N. & B. 501, and authorities cited; id. 538-9; Atwood v. Lewis, 6 Mo. 392.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Holmes

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Holmes, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court.

In this case, the error complained of consists in the striking out of a part of the defendant’s answer. The suit was upon a negotiable promissory note. This portion of the answer set up as a defence some indistinct verbal understanding as to. the time when the note should be paid, depending upon the payee removing certain squatters off the land for the purchase money of which the note was given. The land had been conveyed to the defendant, but the squatters had not been removed. This was no such agreement as could alter or vary the terms of the written instrument. If there were any such agreement, it might be made the ground of an action for damages, but it was no defence to the action on the note — Bridge v. Tierman, 36 Mo. 439 . There was no error in striking out the answer.

The judgment will be affirmed, with ten per cent, damages.

The other judges concur.

Motion for rehearing overruled.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1895: 11929: 118952026peak 1895 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Blount County Bank v. Robinett McCay122 So. 802 (Ala. Ct. App. 1929)
  2. Ahlstrom v. Fitzpatrick42 P. 757 (Mont. 1895)

Most recent

  1. Blount County Bank v. Robinett McCay122 So. 802 (Ala. Ct. App. 1929)
  2. Ahlstrom v. Fitzpatrick42 P. 757 (Mont. 1895)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Bridge v. Tierman, 36 Mo. 439 (1865) 8

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list