Bank of Scott City v. Sandusky
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the Buchanam Circuit Court. — Hon. Henby M. Ramey, Judge. , , (1) As member of a trading partnership, more ■especially being resident and managing partner, James I. Button had “authority implied by law to bind” the respondent, “by commercial paper executed in the firm-name.” Beardorf v. Thatcher, 78 Mo. 131; Beitz v. Regnier, 27 Kan. 105; Parsons on Partnership [2 Ed.] 211; Haldeman ' é Grubb v. Bank, 28 Pa. St. 440; Bimsen v. Negley, 25 Pa.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Buchanam Circuit Court. — Hon. Henby M. Ramey, Judge. , , (1) As member of a trading partnership, more ■especially being resident and managing partner, James I. Button had “authority implied by law to bind” the respondent, “by commercial paper executed in the firm-name.” Beardorf v. Thatcher, 78 Mo. 131; Beitz v. Regnier, 27 Kan. 105; Parsons on Partnership [2 Ed.] 211; Haldeman ' é Grubb v. Bank, 28 Pa. St. 440; Bimsen v. Negley, 25 Pa. St. 297; F&wrt v. Brown, 23 Mo. App. 332, 336. (2) The burden of proof was on respondent to show note was not given for the business of J. I.…
1Opinion of the CourtGill, J.
Prior to June, 1890, one Gleorge S. Sandusky and James I. Button, under the firm-name of Sandusky & Button, were engaged in the mercantile business at Hamlin, Kansas. During such copartnership Sandusky & Button, for money borrowed, made their promissory note in the sum of $1,500 to plaintiff. During the said month of June, 1890, said Greorge Sandusky withdrew from the firm, and thereupon Button and defendant, O. A. Sandusky, formed a new copartnership for the prosecution of a mercantile business at the same place under the firm-name of J. I. Button & Co.
On July 26, 1890, the $1,500 note, made…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Fagan v. LongSupreme Court of Missouri · 1860
3Cited by4 opinions
- Hely v. HinermanSupreme Court of Missouri · 1924
- Reavis v. ReavisMissouri Court of Appeals · 1923
- First Nat. Bank v. State Nat. BankCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1904
- Lamwersick v. BoehmerMissouri Court of Appeals · 1898