Legal Opinion

Hammett v. Barnum

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided April 10, 1888PublishedCited by 2 opinions

Appeal from the St. Louis Circuit Court, Hon. Leroy B. Valliant, Judge. If Hammett bought the note upon the admissions made by Barnum that the 'note was given for a valuable consideration, and that the advertisement was made without her authority, and that she would pay the note when it became due, Barnum is estopped from now saying that it was procured by fraud. Newman v. Hook, 37 Mo. 207; Ghouieau v. Goddin, 37 Mo. 229 ; Justice v. Lancaster, 20 Mo.

Read the full summary

Appeal from the St. Louis Circuit Court, Hon. Leroy B. Valliant, Judge. If Hammett bought the note upon the admissions made by Barnum that the 'note was given for a valuable consideration, and that the advertisement was made without her authority, and that she would pay the note when it became due, Barnum is estopped from now saying that it was procured by fraud. Newman v. Hook, 37 Mo. 207; Ghouieau v. Goddin, 37 Mo. 229 ; Justice v. Lancaster, 20 Mo. App. 559 ; Barings Ass’n v. Morrison, 48 Mo. 273; Bank v. Gay, 63 Mo. 33 ; Austin v. Loring, 63 Mo. 19. Between the original parties to a…

1Opinion of the CourtPeers, J.

On the twenty-second day of June, 1885, the defendant made, executed, and delivered her promissory note as follows:

“§1000.00. St. Louis, June 22, 1885.
“ Nine months after date I promise to pay to B. P. Hammett or order, one thousand dollars, value received, with interest from date at the rate of six per centum *292per annum. Negotiable and payable without discount or defalcation. (Signed) Mary Bai-kmum.”

To better secure which the defendant made a trust deed on property situated on Sixth street, near Myrtle street, in the city of St. Louis, to Stephen Sealy, as trustee, for the benefit of Hammett,…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Jaqua v. MontgomeryIndiana Supreme Court · 1870
  2. Lee v. TurnerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1886
  3. Weyh v. . BoylanNew York Court of Appeals · 1881
  4. Justice v. Town of LancasterMissouri Court of Appeals · 1886
  5. Brooks v. MartinSupreme Court of Alabama · 1869

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Potter v. EverettMissouri Court of Appeals · 1890
  2. Badger v. StephensMissouri Court of Appeals · 1895

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API