Clough v. Holden
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court, — Hon. R. H. Field, Judge. (1) The instruction given for plaintiff was erroneous, because it based plaintiffs right to recover upon the finding of a single fact (and did not properly state the law as to that fact), while it ignored every other question in the case. Clark v. Hammerle, 27 Mo. 55, 70; Birtiohistle v. Woodward, 95 Mo. 113; Bank v. Metcalf, 29 Mo.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court, — Hon. R. H. Field, Judge. (1) The instruction given for plaintiff was erroneous, because it based plaintiffs right to recover upon the finding of a single fact (and did not properly state the law as to that fact), while it ignored every other question in the case. Clark v. Hammerle, 27 Mo. 55, 70; Birtiohistle v. Woodward, 95 Mo. 113; Bank v. Metcalf, 29 Mo. App. 384. (2) The court erred in excluding the evidence offered by defendant to show that the note was presented for payment after business hours. 1 Daniel on Negotiable Instruments [4 Ed.] secs. 601,…
1Opinion of the CourtGantt, J.
This action was originally commenced against John B. Bancroft as maker, and Howard M. Holden as indorser, of the following note:
“$4,000. Chicago, October 6, 1888.
“On the first day of July, 1889, after date, I promise to pay to the order of the Union Tie Company, Chicago, $4,000 at room 70, Home Insurance Building, Chicago, Illinois, value received.
“No. 9995. John D. Bancroft.77. Indorsed: “Union Tie Company, J. D. Bancroft, Treasurer. Pay to the order of D. M. Clough, Esq., Howard M. Holden, Kansas City, Mo. D. M. Clough. Pay D. Hoyt, cashier or order, for collection, account of Bank of…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Bank of United States v. SmithSupreme Court of the United States · 1826
- Reed v. BottSupreme Court of Missouri · 1889
- Seligman v. RogersSupreme Court of Missouri · 1893
- Hoester v. SammelmannSupreme Court of Missouri · 1890
- Fox v. WebsterSupreme Court of Missouri · 1870
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Och v. Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1895
- Sanford v. Royal InsuranceWashington Supreme Court · 1895
- Barrie v. United Railways Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1909
- First National Bank v. RohrerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1897
- Knapp, Stout & Co. v. St. LouisSupreme Court of Missouri · 1900
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.