Steamboat Charlotte v. Lumm ex rel. Hammond
Supreme Court of Missouri
ERROR to St. Louis Court of Common Pleas. POINTS AND AUTHORITIES. The counsel for the plaintiff in error insists that the judgment of the court below ought to be reversed for the following reason : 1. That the court erred in the instructions given. 3. The court erred in refusing the instructions asked by the defendant. First, then, in regard to the instructions given.
Read the full summary
ERROR to St. Louis Court of Common Pleas. POINTS AND AUTHORITIES. The counsel for the plaintiff in error insists that the judgment of the court below ought to be reversed for the following reason : 1. That the court erred in the instructions given. 3. The court erred in refusing the instructions asked by the defendant. First, then, in regard to the instructions given. The bill of exceptions discloses that it was contended at the trial that a note for $550, executed by Hoffman to Lumm, on account of the work and materials, was still outstanding”, in proof of which a receipt of the date of…
1Opinion of the CourtScott, J.
This is a suit involving the principles determined in the case of the steamboat Charlotte vs. John R. Hammond, decided at this term of the court. The fact that the note given in liquidation of the account, was not produced on the trial, constitutes the only difference between the cases. Hoffman, the owner of the boat, who executed the note, had been declared a bankrupt and obtained a final discharge before the com-meneement of the suit.
The law seems to be well settled, that although a promissory note does not extinguish the original cause of action for which it was given, without a special…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Raymond v. MerchantNew York Supreme Court · 1824
3Cited by3 opinions
- McCormack Harvesting Machine Co. v. BlairMissouri Court of Appeals · 1910
- West Publishing Co. v. CorbettMissouri Court of Appeals · 1912
- Lord v. KoenigMissouri Court of Appeals · 1879