Lessing v. Sulzbacher
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Buchanan Common Pleas. In order to prove the execution of the note plaintiff had a right certainly to prove that it had been executed by defendant, or by his authorized' agent.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Buchanan Common Pleas. In order to prove the execution of the note plaintiff had a right certainly to prove that it had been executed by defendant, or by his authorized' agent. In order to do so, ho offered to prove that this note was executed by his partner (who was his agent) in the regular course of the partnership business and on partnership account; this tended to prove an authority to execute the note, or to prove the execution of the note by said defendant. This evidence was excluded on the ground that no partnership was alleged in the petition. This was not material; we…
1Opinion of the CourtBast, Judge
This suit was brought upon a promissory note alleged in the petition to have been executed by the defendants, by the name and style of A. Sulzbacher, whereby they promised to pay, &c. Aaron Sulzbacher alone answers and pleads non est factum, alleging that the note is not his act and deed, and that he did not execute the same, nor was it executed by any person for him. Upon the trial of this issue, plaintiff offered in evidence several depositions tending to prove that at the time of the execution of the note, defendants were partners, doing business in the city of St. Joseph, under the name…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Alcorn v. Chicago & Alton RailroadSupreme Court of Missouri · 1891
- Gates v. WatsonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1874
- Stix v. MathewsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1876
- Marx Bros. v. Culpepper & DupontSupreme Court of Florida · 1898