Court Opinion

ID: 9852328
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:28:41.462929+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:25.892713
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice HARNSBERGER
(concurring).
I concur in the result and also with most of Judge PARKER’S opinion. However, I cannot join in what appears as tacit approval of the holdings in Morgan v. Mulcahey, Mo.App., 298 S.W. 242, and in Illinois State Bank of Quincy v. Pedersen, Mo.App., 350 S.W.2d 102, which sanction the separate consideration of two clauses of a single instrument.
The fact that these Missouri decisions are both from the same intermediate appellate court rather than from a state court of final resort leaves them something less than authoritative. More importantly, to divide the provisions of the note violates a cardinal rule of construction. Time and again this court has aligned itself with the predominate majority in saying that an instrument must be interpreted and construed within its four corners. To separate the instrument into two parts violates this principle.