Seymour v. Farrell
Supreme Court of Missouri
Error to Washington Circuit Court. Upon the face of the note, Farrell was not the payee, nor was he in any legal sense an indorser. The law has fixed and settled the prima facie contract of the parties, and in order to prove a different contract or promise to pay, defendant should have pleaded it.
Read the full summary
Error to Washington Circuit Court. Upon the face of the note, Farrell was not the payee, nor was he in any legal sense an indorser. The law has fixed and settled the prima facie contract of the parties, and in order to prove a different contract or promise to pay, defendant should have pleaded it. (Buchner v. Liebig el al., 38 Mo. 188 ; Schmidt v. Schmaelter, 45 Mo. 502; Bradford et al. v. Martin et al., 3 Sandf., N. Y., 647; Jones v. Jeffries, 17 Mo. 577; Bunce v. Beck, 43 Mo. 266.) Under our mw, Farrell was prima facie a joint maker. (Western Boatmen’s Benevolent Asso’n v. Wolf, 45 Mo. 104,…
1Opinion of the CourtAdams, Judge
This was an action on a promissory note brought by the plaintiff, as indorsee after maturity, against the defendants, charging them as joint makers. The contest was with the defendant Farrell, who signed his name on the back of the note, the other defendant having signed at the foot of the note. Farrell denied that he was maker, and claimed that he was only surety by way of indorsement or guaranty; and the whole question was whether he was one of the makers or a guarantor. He was not sued as guarantor, and there were no facts in the case to render him liable as such.
There was much evidence…
2Cited by19 opinions
- Manning v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1904
- State v. TaylorSupreme Court of Missouri · 1889
- Rodney v. WilsonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1877
- First National Bank v. PayneSupreme Court of Missouri · 1892
- State v. RobertsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1922
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.