Walker v. Bank of Missouri
Supreme Court of Missouri
APPEAL from St. Louis Court of Common Pleas. 1. The Bank was not entitled to recover on the evidence given: First, Because there was no legal evidence that the note had been discounted at the bank. The fact, if it had existed, would not have been a substitute for diligence against tlie maker, unless the note had been made and endorsed for the purpose of being so discounted; but whether such be the law or not, there was no evidence here of the fact.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from St. Louis Court of Common Pleas. 1. The Bank was not entitled to recover on the evidence given: First, Because there was no legal evidence that the note had been discounted at the bank. The fact, if it had existed, would not have been a substitute for diligence against tlie maker, unless the note had been made and endorsed for the purpose of being so discounted; but whether such be the law or not, there was no evidence here of the fact. Second, Because there was no legal notice, or waiver of notice. The notice proved is the deposit of a note in the post-office, not signed by any…
1Opinion of the Court
Tompkins, J.,
delivered ihe opinion of the Court.
This was an action of assumpsit, brought in the Court of Common Pleas of St. Louis county, by tl\e Bank of the State of Missouri, against John K. Walker* *706as endorser of a note made by William Carr Lane, payable to Walker’s order. Judgment was given for the plaintiff, to reverse which Walker appeals to this Court!
The note was read in evidence by the plaintiff. It is in these words :
“ Four months after date, I promise to pay to the order of John K. Walker, at the Bank of the State of Missouri,'in the state of Missouri, two hundred and fifty…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Barret v. EvansSupreme Court of Missouri · 1859
- Walmsley v. ActonNew York Supreme Court · 1865