McPike v. McPherson
Supreme Court of Missouri
Error to St. Louis Circuit Court. If the assignment had been proved as alleged, it was an assignment of only McPherson’s interest; it does not purport to assign more, and there is no principle of law that gives it greater effect. It is assumed to be absolutely certain that McPherson’s interest in the notes, bond, and suit, was assignable — Lyon v. Lyon, 4 Bibb. 438; Ellege v. Straughan, 2 B. Mon. 82 ; Bank v. Trimble, 6 B. Mon. 599; Gamble v. Johnston, 9 Mo. 605; Sto. Eq.
Read the full summary
Error to St. Louis Circuit Court. If the assignment had been proved as alleged, it was an assignment of only McPherson’s interest; it does not purport to assign more, and there is no principle of law that gives it greater effect. It is assumed to be absolutely certain that McPherson’s interest in the notes, bond, and suit, was assignable — Lyon v. Lyon, 4 Bibb. 438; Ellege v. Straughan, 2 B. Mon. 82 ; Bank v. Trimble, 6 B. Mon. 599; Gamble v. Johnston, 9 Mo. 605; Sto. Eq. PI. § 349; Munsel v. Lewis, 2 Denio, 224 ; Hodgman v. W. R.R. Co., 7 How. Pr. 493 ; Lawrence v. Boyard, 7 Paige, 76;…
1Opinion of the CourtHolmes, Judge
It appears that William H. Pritchartt was the holder of certain notes secured by a deed of trust on a steamboat; that Lewis A. Wei ton as principal, and Nicholas Springer and Thomas M. Wannell and others as sureties, executed a bond to Pritchartt, in consideration that he would release the boat, conditioned that they would pay the notes at maturity ; that the notes and bond were assigned by Pritchartt, after maturity of the notes, to John J. Anderson and the defendant McPherson, who instituted suit upon the bond against the the obligors, and that, pending the suit, McPherson executed an…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Bank of Galliopolis v. TrimbleCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1846
- Dobyns v. McGovernSupreme Court of Missouri · 1852
- Elledge v. StraughnCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1841
3Cited by1 opinion
- Turner v. DrakeSupreme Court of Missouri · 1879