Dorn v. Parsons

56 Mo. 601
CourtSupreme Court of Missouri
DecidedMarch 15, 1874
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 56 Mo. 601 (Dorn v. Parsons) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Dorn v. Parsons, 56 Mo. 601 (Mo. 1874).

Opinion

Adams, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The plaintiffs presented to the Probate Court of Newton county a demand against the estate of Baldwin Parsons, deceased, for allowance. That court refused to allow the claim, and the plaintiffs appealed to the Circuit Court. The demand referred to was a note, which reads as follows:

“ One day after date, I promise to pay N. A. Birkey, forty-four dollars and seventy cents, with interest at ten per cent, for value received, this 27th Dec. 1860.
Signed, Baldwin Paesons.”

On the trial of the case, the plaintiffs offered evidence tending to show that Baldwin Parsons had executed the rióte; but gave no evidence whatever to prove their ownership oí the note. They offered in evidence an affidavit which one of the plaintiffs had filed, to the effect that they had given the estate credit for all just payments and offsets to which it was entitled, and that the balance claimed was justly due. This affidavit was rejected, and plaintiffs excepted.

The court found for defendant, and disallowed the claim; and the plaintiffs filed a motion for a new trial, which was overruled.

There seems to be nothing in this case to justify this appeal. It is urged here, that there was no dispute as to the plaintiffs being the owners of the note, and that the note had been executed by Parsons to Birckey. The record' does not bear out this assumption. There was no proof at all of ownership.

The possession of a note payable to bearer, or indorsed in blank, would be prima facie evidence of ownership. But the possession of such a note as this is no evidence at all of ownership.

[602]*602• I do not see upon what ground the affidavit was offered as evidence. Such an affidavit is not intended to be used as evidence ; but is a pre-requisite required to be made before the court can allow the claim, or even hear any evidence at all in regard to it. An affidavit may be used for that purpose, or the- oath of the claimant in open court; (1 Wagn. Stat., 103, § 12.)

Judgment affirmed.

Judges Tories and Napton concur. Judges Wagner and Sherwood absent.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Industrial Bank v. Sweet
5 Misc. 2d 876 (New York Supreme Court, 1957)
City Trust Co. v. Botting
139 Misc. 684 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1930)
Federal Intermediate Credit Bank v. Carolina Petroleum Co.
153 S.E. 738 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1930)
County of Ada v. Clark
253 P. 847 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1927)
Feurt v. Lotspeich
273 S.W. 240 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1925)
Wade v. Boone
168 S.W. 360 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1914)
Escamilla v. Pingree
141 P. 103 (Utah Supreme Court, 1914)
Bosse v. Weik
129 S.W. 417 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1910)
Scotland County National Bank v. Hohn
125 S.W. 539 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1910)
Wagoner Undertaking Co. v. Jones
114 S.W. 1049 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1908)
Hair v. Edwards
77 S.W. 1089 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1904)
Richardson v. Moffitt-West Drug Co.
69 S.W. 398 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1902)
Shepard v. Hanson
83 N.W. 20 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1900)
State v. Stebbins
33 S.W. 1147 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1896)
Cavitt v. Tharp
30 Mo. App. 131 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1888)
Durein v. Moeser
36 Kan. 441 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1887)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
56 Mo. 601, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dorn-v-parsons-mo-1874.