Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

12 Mo. 512

Magoffin v. Muldrow

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided October 15, 1849

Supreme Court of Missouri · decided 1849-10-15

1st. That the article of co-partnership, and the sale of the lots in Marion city, were obtained by fraudulent representations on the part of Muidrow, and were null and void in law. Fraud violates all things.

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently May 1882

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1849-10-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Judge Ryland

¶1delivered the opinion of the court:

¶2The plaintiff, Magoffin, sued Muldrow in assumpsit, for money had and received-, for money paid, laid out and expended &c., for money lent &c., and for interest.

¶3The defendant filed non-assumpsit and set-off.

¶4On the trial of the case the plaintiff offered in evidence an article of copartnership between himself and the defendant, under their hands and seals, stating that it had been obtained by fraud, and tWt be intended to prove that large sums of money had been paid by him to Muldrow upon this article. The plaintiff then offered evidence to show the ■fraud of Muldrow in obtaining the article, and to show large sums of money advanced to him by plaintiff under the 'article of copartnership.

¶5The court rejected all the evidence offered by plaintiff, after the article of copartnership was exhibited, thereby preventing his proof of fraud, and also preventing the proof of the payment of large sums of money under the article by plaintiff to defendant.

¶6The plaintiff excepted to the opinion of the court, in rejecting the testimony, took a non suit, and then moved to set the non suit aside ; which motion was overruled—excepted to, and the plaintiff now brings the cause here by writ of error.

¶7I am of the opinion that the court below erred in refusing to admit testimony to show the fraud and the payment of money under this article of copartnership.

¶8Fraud vitiates the contract, and if the article was obtained by fraudulent representations—and money paid thereon by means of such *514fraudulent acts on the part of the defendant; I hold it clear that the plaintiff had an undoubted right to treat this article of copartnership as a nullity, as an act arising íc ex dolo el malo” and to sue in this form of action to recover the money paid by him to defendant, under this fraudulent article. The court then erred in not permitting the plaintiff 5s proof as offered 3 and its judgment is reversed—cause remanded, with directions to set aside the non suit, with leave to plaintiff to proceed with his action.

/12/mo/512 · .json · Public domain