Wiley v. Holmes
Supreme Court of Missouri
Error to St. Louis Court of Common Pleas. This was an action on the following promissory note: “ 120,202.97. New York, March 19, 1849. Twelve months after date, we promise to pay to the order of L. M. Wiley & Co., at their office in New York, twenty thousand two hundred and two 97-100 dollars, value received. [Signed] Bloomer & Holmes.”
Read the full summary
Error to St. Louis Court of Common Pleas. This was an action on the following promissory note: “ 120,202.97. New York, March 19, 1849. Twelve months after date, we promise to pay to the order of L. M. Wiley & Co., at their office in New York, twenty thousand two hundred and two 97-100 dollars, value received. [Signed] Bloomer & Holmes.” The defendants set up as a defence that by the law of New York, to which the note was subject, the promise and obligation of the note were joint and not several; that a judgment of a court of record had against one of the makers thereof alone was a merger and…
1Opinion of the CourtScott, Judge
This suit is founded on a promissory note executed to the plaintiffs by the style of L. M. Wiley & Co., payable in Now York. The note was signed- “ Bloomer & Holmes” — a partnership composed of the defendant and Robert Bloomer — and dated “New York, March 19th, 1849.” The defence was that by the laws of New York the note was a joint one, and that by the law of that state a judgment recovered against one of the parties thereto was a merger and- extinguishment of the contract as to the other party, and that afterwards no action could be maintained upon it; that in an action on the said note in…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Candee v. ClarkMichigan Supreme Court · 1851
3Cited by1 opinion
- McElroy v. FordMissouri Court of Appeals · 1899