Clayton v. Phipps
Supreme Court of Missouri
APPEAL from Franklin Circuit Court. STATEMENT OP THE CASE. This suit was brought on a note for $387 63, dated at St. Paul, Missouri, 17th Oct. 1848, •signed by Griffin as maker and payable eight months after date to Thomas F. Clayton, or order, for value received, negotiable and payable, without defalcation or discount, with interest from maturity at the rate of 6 per cent, per annum, which was endorsed before maturity and delivered to Romulus J. Poindexter, who, before it…
Read the full summary
APPEAL from Franklin Circuit Court. STATEMENT OP THE CASE. This suit was brought on a note for $387 63, dated at St. Paul, Missouri, 17th Oct. 1848, •signed by Griffin as maker and payable eight months after date to Thomas F. Clayton, or order, for value received, negotiable and payable, without defalcation or discount, with interest from maturity at the rate of 6 per cent, per annum, which was endorsed before maturity and delivered to Romulus J. Poindexter, who, before it was due, endorsed and delivered it to -Phipps and others, a mercantile firm, in whose name the suit was brought in the…
1Opinion of the CourtRyland, J.
Prom the above statement, the question of most importance in this qase is, did the promise of the defendant to pay the note after its maturity afford evidence of the waiver of presentment and notice ?
This action was on a negotiable note against the endorser. The de-fence relied on was that due diligence had not been used by the holder against the original maker of the note, averting that the maker was am-*402piy solvent at the maturity of the note and for a considerable time after-wards.
The proof shows that the endorser frequently promised to pay the note after it was due. The note was presented…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Laumeier v. HallockMissouri Court of Appeals · 1903
- Harness v. Davies County Savings Ass'nSupreme Court of Missouri · 1870
- Austin v. KeatingMissouri Court of Appeals · 1886