Freligh v. Ames
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court. This was an action on a negotiable promissory note executed in March, 1857, by Ames to Hofelman’s order, payable eight months after date. The note was endorsed by Hofelman and L. Lawrence, and when due, was presented at the place made payable, and not being paid, was duly protested and the endorsers duly notified of the nonpayment so as to be bound and liable.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court. This was an action on a negotiable promissory note executed in March, 1857, by Ames to Hofelman’s order, payable eight months after date. The note was endorsed by Hofelman and L. Lawrence, and when due, was presented at the place made payable, and not being paid, was duly protested and the endorsers duly notified of the nonpayment so as to be bound and liable. Ames and Hofelman answer separately, both plead usury, payment of the note by other notes, and deny ownership of plaintiff, charging the assignment to be in bad faith for the purpose of avoiding…
1Opinion of the CourtScott, Judge
The court in its discretion properly refused a continuance on the affidavit filed. The witness was late of this state, was in another state, and there was a “ probability” that he would return.
As none of the defences set up in the answer were proved, it was a matter of indifference whether the note was endorsed to the plaintiff for value or not. If the note had been given to her, she might have sustained this action.
It is no defence to an action on a note against a secixrity that the security reqxxested the payee to sxxe the priixcipal *255and he refused. Under the statute there should have been…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Yeldell v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1893
- Wingo v. StateMississippi Supreme Court · 1884
- Quillen v. QuigleyNevada Supreme Court · 1879
- Petty v. DouglassSupreme Court of Missouri · 1882
- Reagan v. St. Louis Transit Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1904