Hill v. McPherson
Supreme Court of Missouri
ERROR to St. Louis Circuit Court. STATEMENT OE THE CASE. This was a suit begun before justice Mann Butler, February 7th, A. D., 1847, by the defendant in error against the plaintiff in error oñ an instrument of writing in the following figures and and words, to wit: “Dollars $'100. St. Louis, August 13, 1845.” Borrowed and received of Hugh White, Jr., one hundred dollars payable on demand,” (Signed) • “J. McPHERSON & CO.” Upon the back of which was written the following…
Read the full summary
ERROR to St. Louis Circuit Court. STATEMENT OE THE CASE. This was a suit begun before justice Mann Butler, February 7th, A. D., 1847, by the defendant in error against the plaintiff in error oñ an instrument of writing in the following figures and and words, to wit: “Dollars $'100. St. Louis, August 13, 1845.” Borrowed and received of Hugh White, Jr., one hundred dollars payable on demand,” (Signed) • “J. McPHERSON & CO.” Upon the back of which was written the following words, to wit: “For value received I assign the within note to Britton A. Hill, and order that amount due thereby to be paid…
1Opinion of the CourtRyrand, J.
From the facts, appearing by the statement above, the question arises whether an assignee of a non negotiable note can maintain an action at law against the makers of the note, when the assigiibig; himself, could not*
That White, the assignor and payee of the note, which is not negotiable, being, himself, one of the firm of McPherson &Co., the makers of the note, could not, at law, maintain an action on this note against the makers : that is, that he could not be both plaintiff and defendant in the same snit at law, is a proposition that does not now require the citation of authorities to…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Thompson v. LoweIndiana Supreme Court · 1887
- Knaus v. GivensSupreme Court of Missouri · 1892
- MacDougall v. National BankSupreme Court of Georgia · 1920
- Goetz v. PielMissouri Court of Appeals · 1887
- Calhoun v. AlbinSupreme Court of Missouri · 1871