Case Name: Washington Hyde, Appellant, v. James F. Hazel, Respondent
Court: Kansas City Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1891-02-02
Citations: 43 Mo. App. 668
Docket Number: 
Parties: Washington Hyde, Appellant, v. James F. Hazel, Respondent.
Judges: All concur.
Reporter: Missouri Appeal Reports
Volume: 43
Pages: 668–671

Head Matter:
Washington Hyde, Appellant, v. James F. Hazel, Respondent.
Kansas City Court of Appeals,
February 2, 1891.
1. Bills and Jiotes: pleading : evidence : payment : cross demand. Defendant made his negotiable promissory note to W, who indorsed it to B., who brought suit and then transferred it to plaintiff, who was substituted as such for B. Tbe answer was a general denial, and then by way of cross petition setup that B, was indebted to the defendant $300, for three years’ rent for a cheese factory. Held,—
(1) The court erred in admitting evidence of various cash payments under this answer.
(2) Also, in admitting evidence to show an agreement that the rent of the cheese factory was to be applied on the note.
(3) Also, in admitting any testimony to support the cross demand, as it was in no manner connected with the note, and could not be laid on a negotiable note in the hands of an assignee, whether indorsed before or after due.
ON MOTION POR REHEARING.
3.---:--:--:---. The allegation of the petition that “ there is due him thereon the sum of $250 ” will not authorize the admission of evidence of payment under the general denial.
3.---: -:--: SET-OFP. If the theory that under the pleadings it was admissible to show payments were correct, still testimony showing an agreement that factory rent should be applied as payment on the note would be inadmissible, since it is set up in the answer as an offset.
Appeal from the Jackson Circuit Court. — Hon. Richard Field, Judge.
Reversed and remanded.
Kagy & Bremermann, lor appellant.
(1) No evidence of payment of the notes sued on was admissible, because payment was not pleaded. Myers’ Supplement to Whittelsey’s Practice, sec. 163, subd. m; Martin v. Pugh, 23 Wis. 184; Hubler v. Pullen, 9 Ind. 273 ; Balter v. Kistler, 13 Ind. 63 ; McEyring v. Bull, 16 N. Y. 297 ; Texier v. Gouin, 5 Duer. 389 ; R. S. 1889, sec. 2049 ; Smith Go. v. Rembaugh, 21 Mo. App. 393. Willterson v. Farnham, 82 Mo. 678, is strongly in point and cites ; Bliss on Code Pleading, sec. 358; Ennis v. Hogan, 47 Mo. 513 ; Stevens v. Thompson., 5 Kan. 305. (2) The court erred in admitting evidence of agreement to apply rent of cheese factory on second no te, and that defendant had so paid the second note. Authorities, supra. The court erred in refusing to give instructions, numbered 1, 4 and 6, asked by plaintiff. R. S. 1889, sec. 2186. (3) The court erred in permitting defendant to introduce any evidence on his counter-claim. Set-off and counter-claim are not applicable to negotiable paper. Barnes v. McMullins, 78 Mo. 269; Gutter v. Cook, 77 Mo. 388; Haeussler v. Gr.eene, 8 Mo. App. 451; Grier v. Hinman, 9 Mo. App. 213; Daniel Neg. Ins., sec. 725; Wheeler v. Barrett, 20 Mo. 575 ; Gullett v. Hoy, 15' Mo. 399; Plenty v. Halzel, 19 Mo. App. 245.
No brief for respondent.

Opinion:
Ellison, J.
This action, is founded on two promissory notes executed by the defendant to one'Welch-man, and by him indorsed to one Barton, and bydiim transferred to plaintiff since the beginning of the. suit, plaintiff being substituted for Barton. The answer was a general denial, and, "by way of cross petition," alleged that Barton was indebted to defendant in the sum of $300, that sum "being the agreed rental of a certain cheese factory" for the years 1881, 1882 and 1883, "at a rental agreed on between this defendant and said plaintiff, for $100 per year."
Evidence of various cash payments were admitted under this answer. This was error. Payment is new matter not admissible under a general denial. Wilkerson v. Farnham, 82 Mo. 672; Smith v. Rembaugh, 21 Mo. App. 390.
So the 'court erred in admitting testimony under this answer, tending to show that there was an agreement between defendant and B arton, that the rent of the cheese factory was to be applied on either or both of the notes.
So, also, the court erred in admitting any testimony to support the defendant's cross demand. The notes-were negotiable and indorsed by the payee ; whether before or after due is imm atería!. The demand set up by defendant was in no manner connected with the notes (in so far as the answer discloses), and, not being so, it was not such a claim as could be laid on negotiable notes in the hands of an assignee. Such claim, in order to be of any avail, should be connected with or arise out of the note itself. Gullett v. Hoy, 15 Mo. 399; Barnes v. McMullins, 78 Mo. 260.
The judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded.
All concur.