Cooper v. Commonwealth Trust Co.
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Eon. Matt G-. Reynolds, Judge. (1) Plaintiffs’ action cannot be maintained. The money which was received by defendant was not ex aequo et bono the money of the plaintiffs and was not received at the time for plaintiffs’ use.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Eon. Matt G-. Reynolds, Judge. (1) Plaintiffs’ action cannot be maintained. The money which was received by defendant was not ex aequo et bono the money of the plaintiffs and was not received at the time for plaintiffs’ use. Campbell v. Wilson, 13 D. C. 497; Monday v. Siler, 47 N. C. 389. (2) (a) The deposit of the draft by Salmon & Salmon with the Commonwealth Trust Company, defendant, and the crediting of the same by defendant to Salmon & Salmon as cash, in accordance with the usual practice existing between the parties, constituted an immediate…
1Opinion of the CourtReynolds, P. J.
(after stating the facts).— When this case Avas first argued before us we arrived at the conclusion that the judgment of the lower court should be affirmed. A motion for rehearing having been filed, we sustained that and the case has been re-argued and elaborately briefed by counsel. On full and careful reconsideration, we have arrived at the conclusion that our first determination of the case was erroneous.
*629If it is true that Salmon & Salmon were acting as the agents of the plaintiffs in the transaction and were authorized by them to send on the notes, collect the money on them and pay it…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Twellman v. Lindell Trust Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1976
- Hampton v. StephensMissouri Court of Appeals · 1985
- Andrews v. Bank of Buchanan CountyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1921
- Hampton v. StephensMissouri Court of Appeals · 1985