Vette v. Sacher
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. O’Neill Ryan, Judge. (1) The court should have given the peremptory instruction for plaintiff. There was no evidence to support the defense in the case. Muth v. St. Louis Trust Co., 77 M'o. App. 493; Breckenridge v. White, 93 Mo. App. 681; Dunbar v. Fifield, 85 Mo. App. 484; Shoot v. Dorian, 36 Mo. App. 177; Woodson v. Richie, 36 Mo.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. O’Neill Ryan, Judge. (1) The court should have given the peremptory instruction for plaintiff. There was no evidence to support the defense in the case. Muth v. St. Louis Trust Co., 77 M'o. App. 493; Breckenridge v. White, 93 Mo. App. 681; Dunbar v. Fifield, 85 Mo. App. 484; Shoot v. Dorian, 36 Mo. App. 177; Woodson v. Richie, 36 Mo. App. 506. (2) The court erred in giving instruction based upon the theory that Sacher represented to Hauck that said stock was worth its par value, when it was in fact worthless; because there is absolutely no…
1Opinion of the CourtGoode, J.
(after stating the facts). — The plaintiff bought a promissory note for $250, dated August 3, 1903, due two months after date, drawing six per cent interest and payable to the order of the maker, August Saeher. Saeher induced the defendant Valentine Hauck to become an accommodation indorser on the note and sold it before maturity to Vette. Hauck’s indorsement was procured by Saeher depositing with him as security to indemnify him against loss, $1,000 of the Hampton Lead Mining Company’s stock of the par value of one dollar a share. Saeher and a man named Wernse were interested in mining…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Hamilton v. MarksSupreme Court of Missouri · 1876
- Leavitt v. TaylorSupreme Court of Missouri · 1901
- Central National Bank v. PipkinMissouri Court of Appeals · 1896