Jones v. Evans
Supreme Court of Missouri
Error to St. Louis Circuit Court. I. Warehouse receipts are negotiable by endorsement thereon. (Wagn. Stat., 220.) The holder of those receipts is the owner of the goods in law, and the warehouseman is liable always to deliver the goods to the holder of the warehouse receipt. II.
Read the full summary
Error to St. Louis Circuit Court. I. Warehouse receipts are negotiable by endorsement thereon. (Wagn. Stat., 220.) The holder of those receipts is the owner of the goods in law, and the warehouseman is liable always to deliver the goods to the holder of the warehouse receipt. II. The plaintiffs must tender the amount of the advances to the assignee with the cost and expenses; get the warehouse receipts and file a bill to enjoin the judgment that I see no way of preventing, and I do not know if they can get any remedy that way. I. The warehouse receipts were not negotiated bnt only fell into…
1Opinion of the CourtHough, Judge
This was an action under the statute, regulating the claim and delivery of personal property, to recover the possession of thirty-eight hogsheads of leaf tobacco. It appears from the record that in the fall of 1873, the plaintiffs, who were dealers in tobacco at Moberly, agreed to sell to one Patrick Keller sixty-two hogsheads of tobacco in the leaf, at eight and three quarter cents per pound, to be paid for and received by Keller at Moberly. It was subsequently agreed by the parties-that the tobacco should be shipped by rail to Sterling Price & Co. at St. Louis, who were to hold the same as…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Dilworth v. McKelvySupreme Court of Missouri · 1860
- Fallon v. ManningSupreme Court of Missouri · 1864
- Nelson ex rel. Haenschen v. LuchtemeyerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1871
3Cited by4 opinions
- Dougherty v. CooperSupreme Court of Missouri · 1883
- Hickman v. DillMissouri Court of Appeals · 1888
- Campbell Printing Press & Manufacturing Co. v. RoederMissouri Court of Appeals · 1891
- Cole v. Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific Railway Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1886