McHenry v. Shephard
Missouri Court of Appeals
Error to St. Louis Circuit Court. cited: Mann v. Brooks, 7 How. Pr. 450; 7 How. Pr. 460 ; Gilman v. Hovey et al., 26 Mo. 280 ; Bryan v. Mitchell, 28 Mo. 32; How v. Dorsheimer, 31 Mo. 349 ; Whitney v. Kenyon, 7 How.
Read the full summary
Error to St. Louis Circuit Court. cited: Mann v. Brooks, 7 How. Pr. 450; 7 How. Pr. 460 ; Gilman v. Hovey et al., 26 Mo. 280 ; Bryan v. Mitchell, 28 Mo. 32; How v. Dorsheimer, 31 Mo. 349 ; Whitney v. Kenyon, 7 How. Pr. 460 ; Gen. Stat. 682, secs. 21‘, 22, and 24; Horton v. Bayne, 52 Mo. 531;; Corby, Exrx., v. Butler, 55 Mo. 398 ; Chi tty on Bills, 637 Parr v. Woods, 2 M. & W. 844; Merrick v. Phillips, 58 Mo. 436 ; Bennet v. Torlina, 56 Mo. 309 ; Gaudal v. Finn, 23 Barb. 652; Dunham v. Waterman, 17 N. Y. 9 ; Whitney v. Kenyon, 16 Johns. 149; Acker v. Acker, 1 N. Y. Ct. of App. 1; “Clement v.…
1Opinion of the CourtGantt, P. J.
These two cases may be considered together. In the latter a stipulation is filed that the determination of the first . shall be decisive of the second.
On May 5, 1875, there was filed in the Circuit Court of St. Louis county a statement reciting that, whereas, on October 22, 1874, D. Eobert Barclay had made and delivered (it is not said to whom) his negotiable promissory note, of that date, promising to pay, six months after date, to the order of Elihu H. Shephard $8,750, for value received, with 10 per cent, interest, which note was indorsed by said Shepard, Stilson Hutchins, Henry W.…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Dunham v. . WatermanNew York Court of Appeals · 1858
- Lanning v. . CarpenterNew York Court of Appeals · 1859
- Chappel v. . ChappelNew York Court of Appeals · 1855
- Neusbaum v. . KeimNew York Court of Appeals · 1862
- Freligh v. . BrinkNew York Court of Appeals · 1860
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Stern v. MayerMissouri Court of Appeals · 1885
- J. H. Teasdale Commission Co. v. Van HardenbergMissouri Court of Appeals · 1893