Central Savings Bank v. Shine
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Si. Louis Circuit Court. The first, second and third instructions given by the court for the plaintiff were as follows : “1. That the contract set out in the plaintiff’s petition is an absolute undertaking on the part of defendant to pay the plaintiff |15,000 if the plaintiff would loan that sum to O’Neil & Co.; and if plaintiff did loan said sum to O’Neil & Co. in pursuance of said contract, plaintiff is entitled^to recover.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Si. Louis Circuit Court. The first, second and third instructions given by the court for the plaintiff were as follows : “1. That the contract set out in the plaintiff’s petition is an absolute undertaking on the part of defendant to pay the plaintiff |15,000 if the plaintiff would loan that sum to O’Neil & Co.; and if plaintiff did loan said sum to O’Neil & Co. in pursuance of said contract, plaintiff is entitled^to recover. “2. If the court finds that the paper set out in the petition was received by the plaintiff about the 80th of March, 1868, and plaintiff accepted tbe…
1Opinion of the CourtWagner, Judge
This cause was tried on a second amended petition, in which the plaintiff states as its cause of action that Peter O’Neil and Francis Doyle were partners under the name of O’Neil & Co., and that on the 13th of March, 1868, Joseph O’Neil being president of the plaintiff, the defendant wrote to him on that day from Ireland as follows: “Hearing from P. O’Neil and Mr. Doyle that they could use advantageously some additional cash over *462and above .the amount already had pf your bank, and being desirous to promote their interests and enable them to carry on their business efficiently, I will thank…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Russell v. Clark's ExecutorsSupreme Court of the United States · 1812
- Douglass and Others v. Reynolds and OthersSupreme Court of the United States · 1833
- Lawrence v. McCalmontSupreme Court of the United States · 1844
- Reynolds v. DouglassSupreme Court of the United States · 1838
- Sands v. LyonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1846
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by28 opinions
- Dempsey v. ThompsonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1952
- Graham v. RingoSupreme Court of Missouri · 1878
- Hill v. CombsMissouri Court of Appeals · 1902
- Barker v. ScudderSupreme Court of Missouri · 1874
- Heil v. RogersMissouri Court of Appeals · 1959
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.