Bank of Commerce v. Bogy
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court. The facts material to the case are set forth in the opinion of the court. I. The draft operated as an equitable assignment of the fund, because it was drawn against a particular fund, viz: assessments on capital stock. It directed payment of the fund to he made to plaintiff, and the payment was not dependent on any contingency, There was no reservation, on the part of the drawee, of any power or authority over the fund.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court. The facts material to the case are set forth in the opinion of the court. I. The draft operated as an equitable assignment of the fund, because it was drawn against a particular fund, viz: assessments on capital stock. It directed payment of the fund to he made to plaintiff, and the payment was not dependent on any contingency, There was no reservation, on the part of the drawee, of any power or authority over the fund. It was drawn for all of the fund. In cases where an order is drawn for the whole of a particular fund, it amounts to an equitable…
1Opinion of the CourtBliss, Judge
The petition alleges that the plaintiff is a corporation organized under the laws of Maryland; the National Express and Transportation Company is a corporation of Virginia, to Ayhose stock of $100 a share the defendant subscribed for fifty shares, “ and then and thereby obligated himself to pay said Express Company the sum of $100 per share, or $5,000 in all, at such times and in such sums as should be required and ordered by the legally constituted officers of the said Express Company, and to this end to accept of such drafts as should from time to time be drawn by said Express Company on…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Mandeville v. WelchSupreme Court of the United States · 1820
- Kimball v. DonaldSupreme Court of Missouri · 1855
- Walker v. MauroSupreme Court of Missouri · 1853
- Blin v. PierceSupreme Court of Vermont · 1847
- Ford v. AngelrodtSupreme Court of Missouri · 1865
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- Goldman v. MurrayCalifornia Supreme Court · 1912
- Grammel v. CarmerMichigan Supreme Court · 1884
- Welch v. MayerColorado Court of Appeals · 1894
- Lawrence National Bank v. KowalskyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
- Luthy v. WoodsMissouri Court of Appeals · 1878
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.