Lake v. Hastings
Court of Appeals of Mississippi
In error from the circuit court of Warren county; Hon. George Coalter, judge. The opinion of the court contains the facts. If authority were needed to show the plaintiff in an action cannot recover without showing the title in him to a note, Beard v. Griffin, 10 S. & M. 586 is an express affirmance of this principle.
Read the full summary
In error from the circuit court of Warren county; Hon. George Coalter, judge. The opinion of the court contains the facts. If authority were needed to show the plaintiff in an action cannot recover without showing the title in him to a note, Beard v. Griffin, 10 S. & M. 586 is an express affirmance of this principle. So is Wiggle v. Thomason, 11 S. & M. 452; so is Dowell v. Brown, 13 lb. 43. See especially this last case, which fully concurs, by its reasoning and the principles established in it, with the case at bar. It will not do to say that justice has been done; that the present…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Yerger
In this case Hastings, as payee of a promissory note, brought suit for the use of John O. Pierson against William A. Lake. On the trial the note was offered in evidence, and it appeared that Hastings had indorsed it in full to Reading and Peck, who had indorsed it in blank. The defendant objected to it as evidence, but the note was read to the jury. The defendant then proved that Hastings had indorsed the note in full to Reading and Peck, and delivered it to them for value received; that they indorsed it in blank and delivered it to John O. Pierson, and that Pierson and Reading and Peck are…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Olivera v. The Union Insurance CompanySupreme Court of the United States · 1818
3Cited by3 opinions
- Ralston Purina Company v. Como Feed & Milling CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1963
- Beck v. RosserMississippi Supreme Court · 1890
- Ralston Purina Co. v. Como Feed & Milling Co.District Court, N.D. Mississippi · 1962