Hickman v. Kunkle
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Hannibal Court of Common Pleas. I. Prima facie the note was binding on the partnership. The burden of showing a want of authority rests upon tlio defendant. (Story on Part. § 133.) The execution of the note by Webb in the name of the firm was admitted.
1Opinion of the CourtNapton, Judge
This action was originally before the recorder of Hannibal, who was acting as a justice of the peace, but it was subsequently tried in the Hannibal court of common pleas. The suit was upon a negotiable promissory note for seventy-one dollars and forty-two cents, executed, in the name of Webb & Kunlde, partners in a livery stable, to the plaintiffs, who dealt in stoves, tin-ware, &c. Upon the trial, the plaintiffs offered to read the note in evidence, but the defendant stated, ore terms, that the note was executed by Webb on his own private account and without the knowledge or consent of…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Doty v. BatesNew York Supreme Court · 1814
3Cited by8 opinions
- Deardorf's Administrator v. ThacherSupreme Court of Missouri · 1883
- Deitz v. RegnierSupreme Court of Kansas · 1882
- Feurt v. BrownMissouri Court of Appeals · 1886
- Tilford v. RamseySupreme Court of Missouri · 1866
- Associates Discount Corp. v. IsgriggsMissouri Court of Appeals · 1968
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.