Rittenhouse v. Ammerman
Supreme Court of Missouri
«Appeal from Maries County Circuit Court. Signed as it was there could be no personal liability nor judgment de honis propriis on the note. The intent to bind only the assets of the estate is plain on the face of the instrument. In the case'of Bank of Troy vs. Tapping, 9 Wend. 278 ; 13 Wend. 557, it was held that the executor is not liable unless it be shown that he had assets.
Read the full summary
«Appeal from Maries County Circuit Court. Signed as it was there could be no personal liability nor judgment de honis propriis on the note. The intent to bind only the assets of the estate is plain on the face of the instrument. In the case'of Bank of Troy vs. Tapping, 9 Wend. 278 ; 13 Wend. 557, it was held that the executor is not liable unless it be shown that he had assets. In 13 Wend, it was held that the giving of the note was -prima facie evidence that there were assets. But in this case it was admitted that there were no assets, and that the estate was and is insolvent. If, however, a…
1Opinion of the CourtNorton, Judge
The defendant in this case was the executor of one James Johnson, deceased, and as such he procured Johnson and Rittenhouse, who were engaged in publishing a newspaper, to publish notices for the sale of his testator’s land, and afterwards executed and delivered three several negotiable notes, payable to said Johnson and Rittenhouse, for such publication. The plaintiff, as administrator of the partnership estate of Johnson and Rittenhouse, instituted suit on said notes against defendant. Ammerman, and obtained judgment against him. On the trial it was admitted that the estate of James Johnson…
2Cited by11 opinions
- Richardson v. PalmerMissouri Court of Appeals · 1887
- Tittman v. ThorntonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1891
- Payne v. First National BankMissouri Court of Appeals · 1891
- Yeakle v. PriestMissouri Court of Appeals · 1895
- Brooks v. MastinSupreme Court of Missouri · 1878
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.