62 Mo. App. 378 | Mo. Ct. App. | 1895
This is an action on a promissory note, of which the following is a copy, to wit:
“$1,000. Springfield, Mo., Oct. 4,1890.
“Four months after date we, or either of us, promise to pay to the order of the American National Bank of Springfield, Mo., one thousand dollars at the American National Bank of Springfield, Missouri, for value received, without defalcation or discount, and with interest at the rate of ten per cent, per annum, from maturity until paid.
“H. H. Westmoreland.
“F. M. Ramey.
“T. O. Love.
“H. R. Langston.”
The following indorsements are on the hack of the note, to wit: (In pencil) “Interest paid to July 1,
At the instance of the defendant the court gave two instructions. In the first the jury were told what kind of an agreement would release á non-assenting surety, and the second is as follows: “And you are further instructed that, in order to establish such an agreement for extension of time as mentioned in the foregoing instruction, it is not necessary to prove such, agreement in express terms, but in determining the question, as to whether or not such agreement was made, you may take into consideration all the facts in-evidence, and infer such agreement by implication, if in your opinion, from a consideration of all the facts admitted in evidence in this ease, such an agreement may be reasonably inferred.”
It is admitted by counsel for plaintiff that the instructions are sufficient, both in form and substance,, but he challenges the sufficiency of the evidence upon which they are predicated. It is claimed that there is no substantial evidence that the cashier of the bank-agreed with Westmoreland to extend the time of the. payment of the note to any definite period.
Concerning the facts, it is conceded that the defendant is a surety and Westmoreland is the principal in the note; that it matured February 4, 1891; that the
The payment of interest on a note in advance furnishes a good consideration for an agreement to extend' the time of its payment, but it does not of itself afford
It follows that the judgment of the circuit court must be affirmed. It will be so ordered.