Legal Opinion

Gray's Harbor Commercial Co. v. Continental National Bank

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided April 12, 1898PublishedCited by 1 opinion

Appeal from, the St. Louis City Court. — Hon. Horatio D. Wood, Judge. Plaintiff’s instruction imposing upon defendant the burden of proof that notice of the holding of the draft for collection was given through the telephone is erroneous. Bunker v. Hibler, 49 Mo. App. 542; Marshall Livery Oo. v. McKelvy, 55 Mo. App. 242; O’Malley v. R. R., 113 Mo. 325; Lumber Co. v. Miller, 64 Mo.

Read the full summary

Appeal from, the St. Louis City Court. — Hon. Horatio D. Wood, Judge. Plaintiff’s instruction imposing upon defendant the burden of proof that notice of the holding of the draft for collection was given through the telephone is erroneous. Bunker v. Hibler, 49 Mo. App. 542; Marshall Livery Oo. v. McKelvy, 55 Mo. App. 242; O’Malley v. R. R., 113 Mo. 325; Lumber Co. v. Miller, 64 Mo. App. 620; Callahan v. Warne, 40 Mo. 131; •Hicks v. R. R., 65 Mo. 34; Newell v. St. L. B. & Iron Co., 5Mo. App. 253; Feurt v. Ambrose, 34 Mo. App. 360; Glover v. Henderson, 120 Mo. 367; McCartney v. Ins. Co., 45 Mo.…

1Opinion of the CourtBland, P. J.

— On October 23, 1894, the respondent (a corporation with its chief office at Cosmopolis, state of Washington) drew its draft on Schulenburg & Boeckeler Lumber Company, of St. Louis, Missouri, for $1,517.35 at one day’s sight, and transmitted it to the appellant bank at St. Louis for collection. This draft was received by the appellant bank on October 27, 1894, and held for four days and returned to the drawers. The letter transmitting the draft instructed the bank not to protest the draft if not accepted and paid. On November 9, 1894, the Schulenburg & Boeckeler Lumber Company made a general…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Marshall v. SchrickerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1876
  2. State ex rel. Planet Property & Financial Co. v. HarringtonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1891
  3. First Nat. Bank of Trinidad v. First Nat. Bank of DenverU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Colorado · 1878

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Phipps v. Markin SandersMissouri Court of Appeals · 1919

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API