Bank of Commerce v. Hoeber
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the St. Louis Circuit Court. The facts alleged in the replication invalidated the composition. In such case the doctrine of rescission of contracts does not apply. Plaintiff could retain the thirty-five per cent received by it, and still sue on the notes for the unpaid sixty-five per cent. — Stuart v. Blum, 28 Pa. 225; Green v. Shriver, 53 Pa. 259; Hefter v. Cahn, 73 111. 296; Durginv.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the St. Louis Circuit Court. The facts alleged in the replication invalidated the composition. In such case the doctrine of rescission of contracts does not apply. Plaintiff could retain the thirty-five per cent received by it, and still sue on the notes for the unpaid sixty-five per cent. — Stuart v. Blum, 28 Pa. 225; Green v. Shriver, 53 Pa. 259; Hefter v. Cahn, 73 111. 296; Durginv. Ireland, 14 N. Y. 322; Pierce v. Wood, 23 N. H. 519; Partridge v. Wesser, 14 Gray, 180; Crandall v. Cochran, 3 N. Y. Sup. Ct. 203; Kahn v. Gumberts, 9 Ind. 430; Reynolds v. French, 8 Vt. 85;…
1Opinion of the CourtBakewell, J.
The action is for two promissory notes made by defendant to the order of plaintiff: one for $4,000, on which $1,400 has been paid ; the other for $1,600, on which $560 has been paid. Plaintiff alleges that the notes have never been negotiated, but that they have been taken from his possession by the fraud of defendant, and by him destroyed, and therefore he cannot file them.
Defendant’s answer denies that the notes have been de*173stroyed by defendant, but says that they were for a valuable consideration delivered up to him by plaintiff as paid and cancelled.
Plaintiff, in his replication, denies…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Medlin v. Platte CountySupreme Court of Missouri · 1843
- Hefter v. CahnIllinois Supreme Court · 1874
- Durgin v. . Ireland and PrudenNew York Court of Appeals · 1856
- Branch Bank at Mobile v. TillmanSupreme Court of Alabama · 1847
- Hook v. MurdochSupreme Court of Missouri · 1866
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Home Insurance v. HowardIndiana Supreme Court · 1887
- Bank of Commerce v. HoeberMissouri Court of Appeals · 1882
- Widman v. American Central InsuranceMissouri Court of Appeals · 1905
- Enneking v. StahlMissouri Court of Appeals · 1880