Hillegas v. Stephenson
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Henry Circuit Court. — Hon. F. P. Wright, Judge. If it was the understanding between plaintiff, and defendant that they were both signing merely for the accommodation of Connor, then they are equally liable, and plaintiff having paid the. whole amount, defendant is liable to him for one-half.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Henry Circuit Court. — Hon. F. P. Wright, Judge. If it was the understanding between plaintiff, and defendant that they were both signing merely for the accommodation of Connor, then they are equally liable, and plaintiff having paid the. whole amount, defendant is liable to him for one-half. Warner v. Price, 3 "Wend. 397; Norton v. Coons, 2 Seld. 33; Barry v. Ransom, 12 N. T. 462; Craythorne v. Swinburne, 14 Ves. 159; Griffith v. Reed, 21 Wend. 501. The evidence shows this was the understanding. Nothing more was necessary — no special agreement. The liability to contribution…
1Opinion of the CourtNorton, J.
This was an action against defendant for contribution as co-security on a promissory note. The-note was executed by plaintiff' and one J. R. Connor, as makers, and made payable to defendant, Stephenson. Stephenson, as payee named in the note, indorsed the note to the Eirst National Bank, Clinton, Missouri. The bank discounted the note for the benefit of Connor — neither plaintiff nor defendant receiving any of the benefits of the note. When the note became due it was protested for nonpayment, and within a few days thereafter plaintiff' paid off said note to the bank, Connor, for whose sole…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- McCune v. BeltSupreme Court of Missouri · 1869
3Cited by4 opinions
- Knopf v. MorelIndiana Supreme Court · 1887
- Maffat v. GreeneSupreme Court of Missouri · 1899
- Pfluger v. WilshusenNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1892
- Marshall v. CabanneMissouri Court of Appeals · 1890