Lincoln National Bank v. Schoen
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the Jaclcson Circuit Court. — Hon. C. O. Tiohenob, Special Judge. (1) The court erred in directing the jury to find for the plaintiff. The questions of fact involved should have been submitted to the jury. Whether Abell was acting for the plaintiff in the purchase of this paper was a question of fact. If he was, then his knowledge as to the character of the paper was the knowledge of the plaintiff.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Jaclcson Circuit Court. — Hon. C. O. Tiohenob, Special Judge. (1) The court erred in directing the jury to find for the plaintiff. The questions of fact involved should have been submitted to the jury. Whether Abell was acting for the plaintiff in the purchase of this paper was a question of fact. If he was, then his knowledge as to the character of the paper was the knowledge of the plaintiff. Upon these facts it was for the jury to say whether Abell was acting for the Bank. And the burden of proof upon this issue was upon the plaintiff after the paper was shown not to be…
1Opinion of the CourtGill, J.
— This is an action on the following promissory note:
“Kansas City, Mo., April 4, 1891.
“Sixty days after date, we promise to pay to Bertha Schoen, or order, at the National Bank of Kansas City, ■twelve hundred and fifty dollars for value received, with ■interest from maturity at the rate of ten per cent, per ■annum.
Louis A. Schoen.
“$1250. ’ , Schoen Beos.
“Due June 6, ’91.”
“Endorsed on back Beetha Schoen.”
At the date of the instrument, and for several years prior thereto, George J. and Louis A. Schoen were conducting a drug business at Kansas City as partners, under the firm name of “Schoen…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Hamilton v. MarksSupreme Court of Missouri · 1876
- Sherwood v. Snow, Foote & Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1877
- Emerson v. HarmonSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1837
- Redlon v. ChurchillSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1882
3Cited by1 opinion
- Sash v. M'MahonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1899