Legal Opinion

Meader v. Malcolm

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided October 15, 1883PublishedCited by 8 opinions

Appeal from Phelps Circuit Court. — IIon. H. Y. B. Hill, Judge.

1Opinion of the CourtNorton, J.

This is an action on a promissory note for $500; and the petition, which is in usual form, alleges the execution and delivery of the note by defendants as partners under the firm name of Demuth & Malcolm.

Defendant Demuth made default, and defendant Malcolm answered, denying the execution of the- note in suit ' in the firm name of Demuth & Malcolm, admitting defendants were, on the 8th day of June, 1878, a firm doing business in Rolla, Missouri, under the firm name of Demuth & Malcolm, and pleading that the note in suit was executed by Demuth in the firm name, in fraud of the rights of the…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Henslee v. CannefaxSupreme Court of Missouri · 1872
  2. Farmers' Bank of Missouri v. BaylessSupreme Court of Missouri · 1865

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Epperson v. Postal Telegraph Cable Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1900
  2. Roden v. HelmSupreme Court of Missouri · 1905
  3. Monmouth College v. DockerySupreme Court of Missouri · 1912
  4. Howe v. Pacific Mutual Life InsuranceMissouri Court of Appeals · 1898
  5. Stewart v. American Exchange National BankNebraska Supreme Court · 1898

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API