Bank of Missouri v. Parris
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Greene Circuit Court. I. The petition as to the acceptor is unquestionably good. He can take no advantage of the delay in presenting the bill. The holder is at liberty to allow him whatever indulgence or delay he may please, short of the period which would under the -statute of limitations operate as a bar to his claim. (Sto.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Greene Circuit Court. I. The petition as to the acceptor is unquestionably good. He can take no advantage of the delay in presenting the bill. The holder is at liberty to allow him whatever indulgence or delay he may please, short of the period which would under the -statute of limitations operate as a bar to his claim. (Sto. Bills, § 325 and note 1.) Therefore, even if the petition is insufficient as to the drawer, the court erred in sustaining the demurrer and dismissing the petition. (ITidd, Prac. 694; People v. Mayer et al., 28; Barbour, J. O. R. 251; Butler v. Wood, .10 How.…
1Opinion of the CourtDicvden, Judge
This was a suit on a bill of exchange against Parris as administrator of John Young the drawer, and E. Ebert the acceptor. The petition shows the drawing of the bill by Young, its acceptance by Ebert, and its endorsement and delivery by the payee to the plaintiff. It appears on the face of the petition, that there was no demand of payment or notice of non-payment for about two years after the bill matured. The plaintiff sought to excuse its laches, but whether the matters alleged in excuse were sufficient for that purpose, it is not necessary for us in the view we have taken of the case to…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Allnutt v. LeperSupreme Court of Missouri · 1871
- Swan v. ThompsonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1889
- State v. WeeksSupreme Court of Missouri · 1883
- Brown v. WoodsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1871