Whisler v. Bragg
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from, St. Louis Law Commissioner’s Court. The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion of the court. I. The action was not upon the note itself but upon the assignment. It was not a direct promise to pay money but an implied undertaking by the assignor to pay if the maker did not, provided due diligence be used by the assignees in coercing or trying to coerce payment from the maker.
Read the full summary
Appeal from, St. Louis Law Commissioner’s Court. The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion of the court. I. The action was not upon the note itself but upon the assignment. It was not a direct promise to pay money but an implied undertaking by the assignor to pay if the maker did not, provided due diligence be used by the assignees in coercing or trying to coerce payment from the maker. (Stone v. Corbitt, 20 Mo. 353.) The statute of limitations was therefore well pleaded, and was a bar to this action. The defendant being liable only as assignor, and in no event liable till the insolvency…
1Opinion of the CourtScott, Judge
Charles Walker, on the 22d of August, 1850, executed his promissory note to A. G-. Bragg for one hundred and six dollars, payable six months after date. The note was a nonnegotiable one, and on the 25th August following it, for value received, was assigned to the plaintiff Whisler. The petition alleges that Walker was at the date of the assignment, and ever since has been, insolvent. This suit was by the assignee against the assignor. The consideration for the assignment was a horse worth eighty dollars. There was a judgment for the plaintiff.
Two questions were raised on the trial. 1st.…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Oldham v. TurnerCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1842
3Cited by4 opinions
- Trustees of Broaddus Institute v. SiersWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1910
- Andrews v. SimmsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1878
- Colley v. RowanSupreme Court of Colorado · 1922
- Garesché v. ChouteauSupreme Court of Missouri · 1866