Fourth National Bank v. Heuschen
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from, St. Louis Circuit Court, “ Service of notice of protest by a notary through the hands of a clerk,” without stating the nature of that notice, and especially that the indorser is looked to for payment, is -not “ sufficient to charge the indorsers.” (34 Mo., 575), If the makers of the note had changed or given up their places of business, a demand at their old place of business or late place of business would be insufficient.
Read the full summary
Appeal from, St. Louis Circuit Court, “ Service of notice of protest by a notary through the hands of a clerk,” without stating the nature of that notice, and especially that the indorser is looked to for payment, is -not “ sufficient to charge the indorsers.” (34 Mo., 575), If the makers of the note had changed or given up their places of business, a demand at their old place of business or late place of business would be insufficient. (McGruder vs. Bank, 9 'Wheat., 598 ; Anderson vs. Drake, 14 Johns., 114 ; Reid vs. Morrison, 2 "Watts & Serg., 401.) Actual demand is not necessary in all…
1Opinion of the CourtAdams, Judge
This was an action on a negotiable promissory note, by the plaintiffs, as holders for value before maturity, against the makers and indorsers.
The note was made by a partnership composed of the defendants, Frederick W. Heuschen, Frederick Krite and Fred erick Perschbacker, whose firm name was “Heuschen, Krite & Co.” It was executed to the defendant, John H. Schaales, who indorsed the same to Wilhelm Pi eke, and Picke to the defendant, Frederick W. Heuschen, and he to the plaintiff.
At the close of the evidence the plaintiff asked the following instructions, which were refused by the Court and…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Fourth National Bank v. AltheimerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1886
- Hargadine v. GibbonsMissouri Court of Appeals · 1891