Howard v. Jones
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the St. Louis Circuit Court, Thayer, J. “Though one not a party to a note who puts his name on the back of the note prior to its being put into circulation will be presumed to be a joint maker, yet if such indorsement is made after delivery of the note, the indorser would be held only as guarantor, and would not be chargeable as such unless a consideration were shown.” — Stagg v. Linnenfelser, 59 Mo. 336 (citing Tenney v. Prince, 4 Pick. 385) ; Union Bank v.…
Read the full summary
Appeal from the St. Louis Circuit Court, Thayer, J. “Though one not a party to a note who puts his name on the back of the note prior to its being put into circulation will be presumed to be a joint maker, yet if such indorsement is made after delivery of the note, the indorser would be held only as guarantor, and would not be chargeable as such unless a consideration were shown.” — Stagg v. Linnenfelser, 59 Mo. 336 (citing Tenney v. Prince, 4 Pick. 385) ; Union Bank v. Willis, 8 Mete. 504;, Story on Prom. Notes, 133, sects. 474 (note 2), 467 (note 3) ; Samson v. Thornton, 3 Mete. 275 ;…
1Opinion of the CourtLewis, P. J.
The plaintiff declares on a promissory note for $500 executed by the defendant Jones, in favor of the defendant Lodge, and by him indorsed and delivered to the defendant McDonald, who indorsed and delivered the same to the plaintiff. Protest and notice are averred in due form. The court gave judgment against all the defendants.
From the undisputed testimony and the finding of facts announced by the court, the transactions between the parties appear to have been as follows: The defendant Jones applied to the plaintiff for a loan of $500, telling him that the defendants Lodge and MacDonald would…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Messenger v. VaughanMissouri Court of Appeals · 1891
- Devitt v. FosterMississippi Supreme Court · 1931
- Tri-State Lumber & Shingle Co. v. ProctorMissouri Court of Appeals · 1939