Tumilty v. Bank of Missouri
Supreme Court of Missouri
APPEAL FROM ST. LOUIS COURT OF COMMON PLEAS. This was an action of assumpsit upon a promissory note brought by the appellee as holder against the appellant as first indorser of a note purporting' to have been made by George Breen in favor of Richard Tumilty as payee, and to have been indorsed by him to Bernard Dillon, and by Dillon to tho bank.
Read the full summary
APPEAL FROM ST. LOUIS COURT OF COMMON PLEAS. This was an action of assumpsit upon a promissory note brought by the appellee as holder against the appellant as first indorser of a note purporting' to have been made by George Breen in favor of Richard Tumilty as payee, and to have been indorsed by him to Bernard Dillon, and by Dillon to tho bank. The defendant below filed the statute plea, and also on the 17tb March, 1848, an affidavit stating the transaction, and denying the execution of the instrument. When the case was called for trial, the defendant presented an affidavit for a continuance…
1Opinion of the CourtRyiaitd, J.
Prom the above statement, it will be seen that the appellant, places his reliance for a reversal of the judgment of the court below, upon the ground, that the facts disclosed in this case, amount to forgery in the obtaining of the signature of Tumilty as indorser on the note sued on. And this is the only point I shall consider in this case.
In order therefore to the better understanding of the facts, I will here insert the evidence of Bernard Dillon, Henry Hudson and of George Breen. The plaintiff called George Breen the maker of the note as a witness, who testified , that he knew the…
2Cited by4 opinions
- State v. KroegerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1871
- State v. PowersSupreme Court of Missouri · 1914
- State v. BryantSupreme Court of Missouri · 1851
- Henderson v. BondurantSupreme Court of Missouri · 1867