Sparks v. Brown

Missouri Court of Appeals

Sparks v. Brown

33 Mo. App. 505, 1888 Mo. App. LEXIS 473

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 20, 1888

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 33 Mo. App. 505 (Sparks v. Brown) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sparks v. Brown, 33 Mo. App. 505, 1888 Mo. App. LEXIS 473 (Mo. Ct. App. 1888).

Pincite

Opinion

Hall, J.

Two questions arise on the record in this case. They are, (1) where a mortgage appears upon its face to secure an absolute debt, such as a note described therein, is parol evidence admissible to show that the note and mortgage were in fact given to secure a contingent liability of the mortgagee as the mortgagor’s surety to an amount not greater than said debt ? (2) In the absence of fraud is such a mortgage valid against a subsequent mortgage? Both of these questions must be answered in the affirmative on the authority of the following cases: McKinster v. Babcock, 26 N. Y. 280; Lawrence v. Tucker, 23 How. [U. S.] 14 ; Goodheart v. Johnson, 88 Ill. 61. As to the first question, see also, Jones on Chatt. Mort. sec. 90; Foster v. Reynolds, 38 Mo. 553 ; Baile v. Ins. Co., 73 Mo. 386. And as to the second question, see also, Blincoe v. Lee, 12 Bush (Ky.) 358; Varney v, Hames, 68 Mo. 442; Jones on Chat. Mort. secs. 82 and 88.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

All concur.

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

Hall, J.

Two questions arise on the record in this case. They are, (1) where a mortgage appears upon its face to secure an absolute debt, such as a note described therein, is parol evidence admissible to show that the note and mortgage were in fact given to secure a contingent liability of the mortgagee as the mortgagor’s surety to an amount not greater than said debt ? (2) In the absence of fraud is such a mortgage valid against a subsequent mortgage? Both of these questions must be answered in the affirmative on the authority of the following cases: McKinster v. Babcock, 26 N. Y. 280; Lawrence v. Tucker, 23 How. [U. S.] 14 ; Goodheart v. Johnson, 88 Ill. 61. As to the first question, see also, Jones on Chatt. Mort. sec. 90; Foster v. Reynolds, 38 Mo. 553 ; Baile v. Ins. Co., 73 Mo. 386. And as to the second question, see also, Blincoe v. Lee, 12 Bush (Ky.) 358; Varney v, Hames, 68 Mo. 442; Jones on Chat. Mort. secs. 82 and 88.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

33 Mo. App. 505, 1888 Mo. App. LEXIS 473, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sparks-v-brown-moctapp-1888.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack