Bank of Commerce v. Hoeber
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the St. Louis Circuit Court, Adams, J. The unauthorized interference of a stranger, without the-knowledge or consent of the debtor, did not render the composition agreement void. — Babcodtc v. Dill, 43 Barb. 577. The court below erred in assuming that the defendant was responsible for the unknown and unauthorized promise made by Dickson to Levy & Bro. The promise-itself was a nullity.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the St. Louis Circuit Court, Adams, J. The unauthorized interference of a stranger, without the-knowledge or consent of the debtor, did not render the composition agreement void. — Babcodtc v. Dill, 43 Barb. 577. The court below erred in assuming that the defendant was responsible for the unknown and unauthorized promise made by Dickson to Levy & Bro. The promise-itself was a nullity. It was void. — Lawrence v. Clark, 36 N. Y. 128; Carroll v. Shields, 4 E. D. Smith, 466. The composition-having been signed with a secret promise of preference, is fraudulent and void. — Bank of…
1Opinion of the CourtThompson, J.
The facts of this case, so far as need be stated, were as follows: In 1878, the defendant failed in business, and proposed to compound with his creditors at thirty-five cents in the dollar. He employed an attorney to visit his creditors and negotiate for this composition, empowering him not to offer more than thirty-five per cent. Among these creditors was the firm of James Levy &Bro., of Cincinnati, who refused to take less than fifty cents in the dollar. The plaintiff’s attorney told them that he had no authority from *477his clieut to offer ruore than thirty-five cents, but that, in order to…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Solinger v. . EarleNew York Court of Appeals · 1880
- Babcock v. DillNew York Supreme Court · 1865
- Sage v. ValentineSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1876
- Bank of Commerce v. HoeberMissouri Court of Appeals · 1879
- In re SawyerDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 1876
3Cited by5 opinions
- Mohr v. LanganSupreme Court of Missouri · 1901
- Bannantine v. CantewllMissouri Court of Appeals · 1887
- In re ChaplinDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 1902
- Luehrmann v. St. Louis Furniture Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1886
- Luehrmann v. St. Louis Furniture Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1886