Legal Opinion

Rottmann v. Pohlmann

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided January 3, 1888PublishedCited by 5 opinions

Appeal from the St. Louis Circuit Court, Hon. Shepard Barclay, Judge. We insist that this contract (assuming that it was made as alleged) makes Pohlmann a mere surety, and that when Rottmann took the notes from Belleville, in January, 1880, and granted him an extension of time in two instances thereon, without the consent of Pohlmann, it worked a release of the security as to this debt.

Read the full summary

Appeal from the St. Louis Circuit Court, Hon. Shepard Barclay, Judge. We insist that this contract (assuming that it was made as alleged) makes Pohlmann a mere surety, and that when Rottmann took the notes from Belleville, in January, 1880, and granted him an extension of time in two instances thereon, without the consent of Pohlmann, it worked a release of the security as to this debt. Allen v. Richard, 83 Mo. 55; Springer v. Kleinsorge, 83 Mo. 152. It is not contended that Pohlmann agreed to this extension of time to- Belleville, or that he even knew it, or that he ever knew that Rottmann…

1Opinion of the CourtLewis, P. J.

Plaintiff sues for a balance of $284.74, due on an open account for liquors sold and delivered to John *402Belleville, -upon the defendant’s undertaking and promise to pay for same. There was a jury trial and a verdict for the plaintiff.

It appears that, prior to December 30, 1878, Belle-ville had for a length of time been purchasing liquors from the plaintiff on running account, and had become tardy in his payments ; so that the plaintiff refused to credit him any more, without some responsible security for the accruing indebtedness. The plaintiff ’ s testimony tended to prove that thereupon…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Glenn v. LehnenSupreme Court of Missouri · 1873
  2. Chase v. DayNew York Supreme Court · 1819
  3. Flanders v. CroliusThe Superior Court of New York City · 1852
  4. Post v. GeogheganNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1874

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. F. Hattersley Brokerage & Commission Co. v. HumesMissouri Court of Appeals · 1916
  2. Stokes v. MillsMissouri Court of Appeals · 1913
  3. Frissell v. WilliamsMissouri Court of Appeals · 1901
  4. Mound City Paint & Color Co. v. Shooting the Chutes Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1898
  5. Newland College of Obstetrics & Lying-In Institute v. BorckMissouri Court of Appeals · 1891

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API