Union Savings Ass'n v. Diebold
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court. cited: 2 Wag. Stat. 1046, sec. 45; Carroll v. Corn, 1 Mo. 161; 2 Greenl. on Ev., secs. 155, 161, 162; Story on Bills, sec. 451; 2 Pars, ■on Notes & Bills, 119;' Sohe v. Palmer, 28 Mo. 539, last par. on 542; Story on Ag. (8th .ed.), secs. 99, 78, and ■cases cited; Story on Ag., sec. 87; Beach v. Vandewater, 1 Sandf.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court. cited: 2 Wag. Stat. 1046, sec. 45; Carroll v. Corn, 1 Mo. 161; 2 Greenl. on Ev., secs. 155, 161, 162; Story on Bills, sec. 451; 2 Pars, ■on Notes & Bills, 119;' Sohe v. Palmer, 28 Mo. 539, last par. on 542; Story on Ag. (8th .ed.), secs. 99, 78, and ■cases cited; Story on Ag., sec. 87; Beach v. Vandewater, 1 Sandf. (N. Y.) 265; Paley on Ag. 278; Sweeting v. Pearce, 9 C. B. (n. s.) 537; Graham v. United States Savings Assn., 46 Mo. 186 ; Filley v. Gilman, 2 N. Y. (Sup. Ct.) 339; Hunt v. Chapin, 6-Lans. (N. Y.) 139; Davidson v. .Stanley, 2 Man. & G. 721;…
1Opinion of the CourtGantt, P. J.
This suit was brought by the plaintiff, on a bill of exchange in the words and figures following:
“ $1,000. St. Louis, January 9, 1872.
“ Sixty days, pay to the order of Diebold & Kienzle one thousand dollars, value received, and charge the same to the account of Diebold & Kienzle.
“ Geo. P. Cochnower.
“To G. Yan Winkle & Co., Sherman, Texas.”
Across the face of the draft was written the name of G. Yan Winkle & Co., and on the back of it, “Diebold & Kienzle. Geo. F. Cochnower, Agt. D. & K.”
Suit was brought against the acceptors and indorsers, Diebold & Kienzle and Yan Winkle & Co.
An answer,…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Campbell & Davis v. MollMissouri Court of Appeals · 1920