Williams v. Smith
Supreme Court of Missouri
Error to Jackson Próbate and Com,7non Pleas Court. Action by the payees against the maker of a note executed in Philadelphia, not negotiable under our statute. The de-fence was, that the plaintiffs had “ assigned the note by endorsement to Robert Aull, and that the same had not been reassigned to plaintiffs.”
Read the full summary
Error to Jackson Próbate and Com,7non Pleas Court. Action by the payees against the maker of a note executed in Philadelphia, not negotiable under our statute. The de-fence was, that the plaintiffs had “ assigned the note by endorsement to Robert Aull, and that the same had not been reassigned to plaintiffs.” At the trial, the defendant offered to read, as evidence of the assignment, the protest annexed to the note, showing that it was protested “ at the request of Robert Aull, the holder,” and also an erased endorsement on the back of the note from plaintiffs to Aull; but this evidence was…
1Opinion of the CourtScott, Judge
It may be seen from the words of the note sued on, that it was not a negotiable one, .within the meaning of the 15th section of the act concerning bills of exchange and negotiable promissory notes.
The note, not being negotiable within the meaning of the statute, there was no authority to protest it; consequently, any protest made of it could not be received as legal evidence. The blank endorsement of the names of the payees is not evidence of a transfer of the note, as it was erased, and as there was no proof that the note ever had been endorsed to any one. The payees may have contemplated a…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Middleton v. GriffithSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1894
- Spencer v. CarstarphenSupreme Court of Colorado · 1890