Robinson v. McFaul
Supreme Court of Missouri
Error to St. Louis Circuit Court. The court erred in striking out the answer, as it contained a good defence to so much of plaintiffs’ claim as arose after the dissolution. Story on Part. §153. Bisset on Part. 90. Godfrey y.
Read the full summary
Error to St. Louis Circuit Court. The court erred in striking out the answer, as it contained a good defence to so much of plaintiffs’ claim as arose after the dissolution. Story on Part. §153. Bisset on Part. 90. Godfrey y. Saunders, 3 Wilson, 94. 1 Livermore on Agency, 80, 84. Wells v. Boss, 7 Taunt..403. Bank of Wilmington v. Almond, 1 Whart. 169. Grow on Part. 149. No agreement is shown by the answer of McFaul to discharge him, nor any Circumstances operating as a satisfaction by him; nor is there any consideration for such agreement, or any change of security shown. Collyer on Part. 324,…
1Opinion of the CourtScott, Judge
The respondents sued Mogridge & McFaul on an account, for goods consigned to them for sale. The account was rendered in the name of the defendants, by Mogridge, up to the 20th of September, 1853, in which there was a balance admitted against them of $827 22.
Mogridge, one of the defendants, confessed the action. McFaul answered, denying any indebtedness to the plaintiffs ; *550that the partnership between himself and Mogridge was dissolved by mutual consent about the 8th day of June, 1853 ; that notice of this dissolution was given to the plaintiffs ; that after notice of the dissolution of the…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Holden v. McFaulSupreme Court of Missouri · 1855