Jamison v. Copher
Supreme Court of Missouri
Error to Lincoln Circuit Court. I. The demurrer should have been overruled as to the first count in the petition. Prior to the revision of 1845, the right of recovery against an assignor, in case of insolvency of the maker, was limited by the words of the statute to the “ assignee of a bond or note other than a negotiable note.” (R. C. 1835, p. 105, § 9.) The note in the case of Davis v. Francisco (11 Mo. 572) was governed by that statute.
Read the full summary
Error to Lincoln Circuit Court. I. The demurrer should have been overruled as to the first count in the petition. Prior to the revision of 1845, the right of recovery against an assignor, in case of insolvency of the maker, was limited by the words of the statute to the “ assignee of a bond or note other than a negotiable note.” (R. C. 1835, p. 105, § 9.) The note in the case of Davis v. Francisco (11 Mo. 572) was governed by that statute. But, in the revision of 1845, the words other than a negotiable note ” were left out, showing an intent in the Legislature to give full effect to the…
1Opinion of the CourtDryden, Judge
This was a petition containing two counts, to which there was a demurrer, the sole ground of the demurrer being the insufficiency of the facts stated to constitute a cause of action. The demurrer was sustained and judgment thereon for the defendant. The plaintiff has brought the case here by writ of error.
The first count is endorsee against his immediate endorser of a negotiable promissoiy note. There was no averment of any demand of payment of the maker, or notice of non-payment to the defendant; but instead it was alleged that at the times, respectively, of the endorsement and maturity of…
2Cited by10 opinions
- State Ex Rel. Adler v. DouglasSupreme Court of Missouri · 1936
- Southworth Co. v. LambSupreme Court of Missouri · 1884
- McHugh v. St. Louis Transit Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1905
- Mitchell v. Health Culture CompanySupreme Court of Missouri · 1942
- Barnes v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1906
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.