Diermeyer v. Hackman
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court. I. There was sufficient legal consideration for the execution, of the agreement by the plaintiff. II. The indorser of a promissory note is discharged from any liability thereon by any valid agreement between the holder and the maker, whereby the holder accepts a composition in discharge of the maker. All other parties to the note who have remedies over against the maker are discharged. (Edwards on Bills, 294; Story on Bills, Oap.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court. I. There was sufficient legal consideration for the execution, of the agreement by the plaintiff. II. The indorser of a promissory note is discharged from any liability thereon by any valid agreement between the holder and the maker, whereby the holder accepts a composition in discharge of the maker. All other parties to the note who have remedies over against the maker are discharged. (Edwards on Bills, 294; Story on Bills, Oap. XI, §§ 424, 425, 426 ; Bayley on Bills, 2 Am. Ed., 357.) III. If the creditor, with knowledge that one of the makers of the note…
1Opinion of the CourtAdams, Judge
This action was founded on the following promissory note.
“ St. Louis, Mo., May 7th, 1863.
Six months after notice we promise to pay to the order of Arnold Diermeyer, Eleven Hundred Dollars, for value received negotiable, and payable without defalcation or discount, with interest from date, at the rate of eight per cent, per annum.
F. W. Henschen & Co.”
Indorsed, “ F. W. Hackman”.
The petition alleges that the note was indorsed by the. defendant Hackman, and being thus indorsed was delivered to plaintiff, and this suit is brought against the defendant as indorser and not as a joint maker; whether…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Tutt v. PriceMissouri Court of Appeals · 1879
- Eggemann v. HenschenSupreme Court of Missouri · 1874