70 Mo. App. 1 | Mo. Ct. App. | 1897
The question is, whether or not, under the evi-' dence adduced at the trial, the plaintiffs were entitled to recover. The testimony tended to establish the following state of facts: On October 12, 1893, George L. and David M. Jones, composing the firm of Jones & Jones, and being indebted to plaintiffs, executed their promissory note whereby they promised to pay plaintiffs on January 1, following, the sum of $180;
The order of the circuit court sustaining the motion to set aside the nonsuit and for new trial is affirmed.