Armstrong v. Armstrong
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from, Clay Circuit Court. The error relied upon in this court for a reversal, is the ruling of the court below, that no demand of payment of the maker of said note, or of notice of non-payment by the maker to the endorser thereof, was necessary to enable the plaintiff below to recover a judgment against the endorser.
Read the full summary
Appeal from, Clay Circuit Court. The error relied upon in this court for a reversal, is the ruling of the court below, that no demand of payment of the maker of said note, or of notice of non-payment by the maker to the endorser thereof, was necessary to enable the plaintiff below to recover a judgment against the endorser. The court is referred to the case of Davis v. Francisco, 11 Mo. 573 ; McKinney v. Crawford, 8 Sergt. & E. 351; Berry v. Eobinson, 9 Johns. 121; Eugby v. Davidson, Cons. Ct. 33; Smith’s Merc. Law, 303-4; Pars, on Cont. 231-2. The note being over due when endorsed, it stood…
1Opinion of the CourtLovelace, Judge
This is an action to recover the amount of a negotiable promissory note, endorsed by the defendant to the plaintiff after maturity. It was tried in the court below upon an agreed statement of the facts, which admit that no demand was ever made of the maker, and no notice ever given to the endorser, who is the defendant here, of a demand and refusal. The court gave judgment against the defendant for *226the amount of the note, to reverse which the case comes here by appeal.
We know of no principle of law upon which the judgment of the court below can be sustained. The statute provides that actions…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Manion v. StateSupreme Court of Missouri · 1848
3Cited by3 opinions
- Kavanaugh v. Farmers' Bank of MaitlandMissouri Court of Appeals · 1894
- Beeler v. FrostSupreme Court of Missouri · 1879
- Gate City National Bank v. SchmidtMissouri Court of Appeals · 1912