167 Mo. App. 635
Decided October 8, 1912
Missouri Court of Appeals · decided 1912-10-08
Louis County Circuit Court. — Hon. G. A. Wurdeman, Judge. (1) The trial court erred in admitting in evidence over the defendants’ objection the notes of $1100 and $44, because they were not the notes described in the petition. It amounted to a failure of proof and not a mere variance. Marcum v. Smith, 26 Mo. App. 460; Halpin M. Co. v. School Dist., 54 Mo. App. 371; Gray v. Race, 51 Mo. App. 553; Ringer-v. Holtzclaw, 112 Mo. 519.
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Revevrsed and remanded · Decided 1912-10-08
Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently November 1931
13 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
View the full empirical analysis of this case →
¶1CONCURRING OPINION.
¶2I concur in reversal on the ground that the trial court erred in excluding the parol evidence offered. As I understand it, that evidence went to prove failure or lack of consideration, either of which may be proved by parol; it did not go to alter or vary the terms of the written contract, neither of which can be proved by parol.