Singer Manufacturing Co. v. Hester
The Singer Manufacturing Company v. Hester
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Napton, J.
The question in this case is identically the same which was decided by this court in Barker v. Scudder, 56 Mo. 276 , and was reiterated in Davis Sewing Machine Co. v. Jones, 61 Mo. 409 . The suit in this case was upon a guaranty of a note for a sewing machine given by the purchaser, Durham, on the back of which was written “Eor a valuable consideration I hereby guaranty the payment of the within note.” Signed: “Joel Hester.” The defense was that “ no notice at anytime was *92 given by plaintiff to defendant, of any demand of payment or refusal to pay, on the part of said Durham, of said note.” There was a motion to strike out this part of defendant’s answer, which was overruled, and judgment was given for defendant on the pleadings. This question was strictly passed on in the case of Barker v. Scudder, and according to that, this judgment must be reversed and the cause remanded.
The other judges concur.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 3 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
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.