Rudolph Wurlitzer Co. v. Rossmann
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Eon. Leo 8. Bassieur, Judge. (1) The notes sued on were wholly without consideration passing to appellant, (a) Absence of consideration is a matter of defense as against any person not a holder in due course. Rev. Stat., sec. 9999. (b) Respondent was not a holder in due course — the notes never having been negotiated, (c) The court expressly found that no consideration passed to appellant.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Eon. Leo 8. Bassieur, Judge. (1) The notes sued on were wholly without consideration passing to appellant, (a) Absence of consideration is a matter of defense as against any person not a holder in due course. Rev. Stat., sec. 9999. (b) Respondent was not a holder in due course — the notes never having been negotiated, (c) The court expressly found that no consideration passed to appellant. The situation upon the record is that appellant was secretary of a corporation for which she signed the notes sued on, as such secretary. This was the ease, even…
1Opinion of the CourtReynolds, P. J.
(after stating the facts). — It will be noticed that there is no complaint made in this motion as to the exclusion of evidence, nor does the requested finding appear. Learned counsel for appellant in his brief makes two points for reversal and we confine ourselves to them.
His first point is, that the notes were wholly without consideration, arguing that absence of consideration is a matter of defense as against any person not a holder in due course, and citing section 9999, Revised Statutes 1909, in support of this proposition. That section provides that absence or failure of consideration is…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Pentz v. StantonNew York Supreme Court · 1833
- Sparks v. Dispatch Transfer Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1891
- Chicago Title & Trust Co. v. BradySupreme Court of Missouri · 1901
- Myers v. ChesleyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1915
- Walker v. DunhamMissouri Court of Appeals · 1909
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Coal River Collieries v. Eureka Coal & Wood Co.Supreme Court of Virginia · 1926
- McIntosh v. WhiteMissouri Court of Appeals · 1969
- Receivables Finance Corporation v. HamiltonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1966
- Sandmann v. GettyCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1934
- Paxston v. Gillam-Jackson Loan & Trust Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1927
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.