Marks v. Bank of Missouri
Supreme Court of Missouri
APPEAL from St. Louis Court of Common Pleas. 1. There is no evidence of sufficient notice to the appellant, of the dishonor of the bill. The clerk of the Bank states, that he left a notice at the counting-room of the appellant, which he believed was made out by the notary in New Orleans, and forwarded by mail to St. Louis.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from St. Louis Court of Common Pleas. 1. There is no evidence of sufficient notice to the appellant, of the dishonor of the bill. The clerk of the Bank states, that he left a notice at the counting-room of the appellant, which he believed was made out by the notary in New Orleans, and forwarded by mail to St. Louis. But, upon being cross-examined, he admits that he never examined the notice, did not know its date or what it contained, or even whether it was signed by the notary. There is no evidence whatever as to the form or substance of the paper left at the counting-room of the…
1Opinion of the CourtScott, Judge
This was an action of assumpsit, brought by the appellee against the appellant, upon a bill of exchange drawn by J. W. Gibson, on John Riggin, and by him accepted, payable to the order of Holman and Axtell, at the Commercial Bank of New Orleans, endorsed by Holman and Axtell and by the appellant, for the accommodation of John Riggin, and discounted for him by the appellee.
On the trial of the cause, Riggin, the acceptor of the bill, being released, testified that before the maturity of the bill he made an assignment of his property for the benefit of his creditors; that the assignment…
2Cited by23 opinions
- City of St. Louis v. St. Louis Gaslight Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1879
- Strong v. WhybarkSupreme Court of Missouri · 1907
- Lusk v. WhiteSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1916
- State ex rel. Shawhan v. EllisonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1918
- Glover v. ShirleyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1913
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.