Welsh v. Edmisson
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the Dallas Circuit Court. — Hon. W. I. Wallace, Judge. (1) The testimony offered by defendant, and rejected by the court, was admissible. The assignment says, “all my interest in the partnership notes, etc., which belonged to us while in business together. ” A note to be conveyed had to possess the compound quality of coming within both of these requirements at the time of the conveyance. If it was wanting in either it was not conveyed.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Dallas Circuit Court. — Hon. W. I. Wallace, Judge. (1) The testimony offered by defendant, and rejected by the court, was admissible. The assignment says, “all my interest in the partnership notes, etc., which belonged to us while in business together. ” A note to be conveyed had to possess the compound quality of coming within both of these requirements at the time of the conveyance. If it was wanting in either it was not conveyed. The use of the words ‘ ‘ interest in” and “partnership notes” show that only notes “due the firm” were intended to be conveyed. The petition…
1Opinion of the CourtSmith, P. J.
The petition of the plaintiff alleged that the partnership relation existing between plaintiff and defendant was on October 12, 1886, dissolved, and that the defendant for a valuable consideration sold and assigned to plaintiff his interest in all notes and accounts due the- firm ; that among them was the note of one Bridges, secured by chattel mortgage for $168.45; that defendant, notwithstanding the said sale and assignment to plaintiff, collected said note and refused to pay over the same to plaintiff, etc. The answer of the defendant admitted,' first, the partnership and its dissolution ;…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- St. Louis, Kansas City & Northern Railway Co. v. ClearySupreme Court of Missouri · 1883
- Funk v. GallivanSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1881
- Missouri Pacific Railway Co. v. AtkisonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1885
- Scarritt v. St. John's Methodist Episcopal ChurchMissouri Court of Appeals · 1879
- Turner v. St. Louis & San Francisco RailroadMissouri Court of Appeals · 1886
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Darnell v. LaffertyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1905
- G. V. Halliday & Co. v. LeshMissouri Court of Appeals · 1900
- Henderich v. Kansas City, Ozark & Southern Railway Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1911
- Kansas City Trust Co. v. Mayflower Sales Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1956