Kahn v. Overstolz
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Son. Daniel D. Fisher, Judge. (1) Hpon tbe fact of the evidence the judgment in both cases should have been for the plaintiff. The firm of Sehubach’s Ticket Office was a trading copartnership, and as such, its individual members were prima facie, jointly and severally bound by a note given by one of them in the firm name, even though in fraud of the other members, and in the absence of notice.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Son. Daniel D. Fisher, Judge. (1) Hpon tbe fact of the evidence the judgment in both cases should have been for the plaintiff. The firm of Sehubach’s Ticket Office was a trading copartnership, and as such, its individual members were prima facie, jointly and severally bound by a note given by one of them in the firm name, even though in fraud of the other members, and in the absence of notice. If the notes were given for the individual use of the member of the firm uttering them, the burden of proof was on the defendants to show that the…
1Opinion of the CourtBond, J.
Schubaeh and Marx were copartners engaged in buying and selling tickets for the transportation of persons by carriers. In October, 1896, Marx sold out his interest in the firm to defendant Overstolz for $2,500. Thereupon Schubaeh and Overstolz continued the business under the firm name and style of Schubach’s Ticket Office, and agreed between themselves to purchase for the use of the firm a membership in the American Ticket Brokers Association, owned by one Stockbridge, at the price of $2,500, $1,500 of which was to be contributed by Overstolz, and $1,000 by Schubaeh. To this end Overstolz…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Dreher & Bumb v. Ætna InsuranceSupreme Court of Missouri · 1853
- Midland National Bank v. SchoenSupreme Court of Missouri · 1894