Kleekamp v. Meyer
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from St Louis Circuit Court. Mercantile usage, its office and effect. — The Reedside, 2 Sumn. 567 ; 2 Pars, on Con. (5tk ed.) 537-540, 546, 547 ; Kimball v. Brawner, 47 Mo. 400; 1 Smith’s Ld. Cas. (7th Am. ed.) 920; 8 Q. B. 374, 386 ; s. c., 6 Eng. Law Rep. 118 ; Smith’s Merc.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St Louis Circuit Court. Mercantile usage, its office and effect. — The Reedside, 2 Sumn. 567 ; 2 Pars, on Con. (5tk ed.) 537-540, 546, 547 ; Kimball v. Brawner, 47 Mo. 400; 1 Smith’s Ld. Cas. (7th Am. ed.) 920; 8 Q. B. 374, 386 ; s. c., 6 Eng. Law Rep. 118 ; Smith’s Merc. Law, 29, 30. “Any rule of law which it is competent to the parties to vary or restrain by an express stipulation, is liable to be affected in the same way by an existing and valid usage.” — 1 Duer on Ins. 200; Gulver v. Gibson, 17 Wend. 305; Fleet v. Murtón, L. R. 7 Q. B. 126. Special usages as to time of…
1Opinion of the CourtLewis, P. J.
Plaintiffs sue upon a draft or check drawn by defendant in their favor on the Farmers and Traders’ Savings Institution, for $310, which was duly presented to the drawee, and protested for non-payment. Defendant’s answer sets up the following facts : That, on the day whereon the check was presented for payment at the counter of the drawee, a contract existed between that corporation and the Mercantile Bank, whereby the latter was bound to pay any check drawn on the Farmers and Traders’ Savings Institution and presented for payment through the clearing-house in the city of St. Louis ; that…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Williams v. Bank of the United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1829
- Bank of Utica v. BenderNew York Supreme Court · 1839
- Clark v. BigelowSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1839
3Cited by1 opinion
- Merchants' Nat. Bank of Houston v. DorchesterCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1911