Ridgley v. Robertson
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. Leeoy B. Valliant, Judge. The instructions prayed by defendant and refused by the court should have been given.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. Leeoy B. Valliant, Judge. The instructions prayed by defendant and refused by the court should have been given. By the terms of the dissolution defendant, the retiring partner, became-a surety as to the firm debts, not only as to his copartner Mitchell, but also as to plaintiff and all other firm creditors having notice that defendant had transferred his interest in the firm property to Mitchell in consideration of the assumption by the latter of all firm liabilities. Brandt on Suretyship, sec. 36; Colgrove v.. Tollman, 67 N. Y. 95; Grove…
1Opinion of the CourtBiggs, J.
The plaintiff sues on four promissory notes. In the first count it is averred that on the *48twenty-seventh day of June, 1883, the defendant and one W. O. Mitchell were partners doing business under the name of Mitchell & Robertson, and that on the day mentioned Mitchell and Robertson, under their firm name, executed and delivered to plaintiff their promissory note for $248.74, due six months afterdate, with interest from date at the rate of ten per cent per annum. The other counts are counterparts of the foregoing, except the notes are for different amounts and matured at different dates.
Two…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Colgrove v. . TallmanNew York Court of Appeals · 1876
- Millerd v. . ThornNew York Court of Appeals · 1874
- Heim v. VogelSupreme Court of Missouri · 1879
- Leabo v. GoodeSupreme Court of Missouri · 1877
- Orrick v. DurhamSupreme Court of Missouri · 1883
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Preston v. GarrardSupreme Court of Georgia · 1904
- Blasland - Parcels - Jordon Shoe Co. v. HicksMissouri Court of Appeals · 1897