Bank of State v. Vaughan
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Greene Circuit Court. I. The- notary’s protest is evidence of a demand and refusal to pay a bill of exchange at the time and manner stated on such protest. (R. C. 1855, § 20, p. 298.) II. The notice given to the endorser and drawer was legal and proper. (Sto. Prom. No. § 301; 3 Kent, Com. 139-40.) III. The certificate of the notary and his affidavit are evidence of the facts therein stated and the manner of said acts. (R. C. 1855, p. 733, § 57.) IV.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Greene Circuit Court. I. The- notary’s protest is evidence of a demand and refusal to pay a bill of exchange at the time and manner stated on such protest. (R. C. 1855, § 20, p. 298.) II. The notice given to the endorser and drawer was legal and proper. (Sto. Prom. No. § 301; 3 Kent, Com. 139-40.) III. The certificate of the notary and his affidavit are evidence of the facts therein stated and the manner of said acts. (R. C. 1855, p. 733, § 57.) IV. There is manifestly nothing, it is submitted, in the point as to a variance between the petition and the bill read in evidence. The…
1Opinion of the CourtLovelace, Judge
This was an action upon a bill of exchange, of which Yaughan was the drawer, Jabez Owen (deceased) the acceptor, and W. EL Barden the endorser. The cause was tried in the Greene Circuit Court, and a judgment rendered for the plaintiff, to reverse which the defendants appeal to this court.
Two grounds are relied on to reverse the judgment of the Circuit Court; first, a variance between the bill declared on and the one offered in evidence; and, second, because due *93notice was not given to the drawer and endorsers of the presentation and non-payment of the bill. These objections will be considered…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Rolla State Bank v. PezoldtMissouri Court of Appeals · 1902
- Stix v. MathewsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1876