Rowsey v. Lynch
Supreme Court of Missouri
vifpeal from Si. Louis Circuit Court. I. This being a suit upon an instrument of writing under seal, plaintiff had ten years within which to bring his action. (Martin vs. Knapp, 45 Mo., 48.) II.
Read the full summary
vifpeal from Si. Louis Circuit Court. I. This being a suit upon an instrument of writing under seal, plaintiff had ten years within which to bring his action. (Martin vs. Knapp, 45 Mo., 48.) II. This action was brought in 1870, and no cause of action accrued to plaintiff until 1862, when his property was sold to pay the debts of the firm of Rowsey & Lynch, because: [it.] Defendant’s agreement was “ to pay off and discharge all the liabilities of the late firm of Rowsey & Lynch,” etc. This agreement put the plaintiff, the retiring partner, in the place of a surety only for the payment of the…
1Opinion of the CourtHough, Judge
Prior to January 1st, 1855, the plaintiff and the defendant were co-partners, doing business under the firm name of Rowsey & Lynch. On that day one McCadden was admitted as a partner, and the style of the firm became Rowsey, Lynch & Co. Thereafter the plaiutiH sold and transferred to said Lynch and McCadden all his interest in the assets of the firm of Rowsey & Lynch, and also in the firm of Rowsey. Lynch & Co., and on the 28th day of February, 1855, the parties entered into an agreement under seal, which contained, with others, the following stipulation: “Said Lynch & McCadden also agree to…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- In re NegusNew York Supreme Court · 1832
- Ham v. HillSupreme Court of Missouri · 1860
3Cited by11 opinions
- Salmon Falls Bank v. LeyserSupreme Court of Missouri · 1893
- Broadwell v. BanksU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Missouri · 1905
- Fontaine v. Schulenburg & Boeckler Lumber Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1891
- Walker v. BowmanSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1910
- Miner v. HowardMissouri Court of Appeals · 1902
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.