Morse v. Diebold
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court. cited: Story on Ag. sec. '87; 1 Pars, on Con. 48; Black v. Vanderyater, 1 Sandf. 265 ; Lawrence v. Gebbard, 41 Barb. 517 ; Humphreys v. Haven, 12 Minn. 298; Paige v. Stone, 10 Mete. 160; Combs v. Scott, 12 Allen, 493; Soné v. Palmer, 28 Mo. •539, last paragraph on 542; Pope v. Eisley, 23 Mo. 185 ; Swearingen v. ICnox, 10 Mo. 31; Wahrendorf v. Whitaker, 1 Mo. 146 ; Sweeting v. Pearce, 9 C. B. (n. s.) 534; Graham. v. United States Savings…
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court. cited: Story on Ag. sec. '87; 1 Pars, on Con. 48; Black v. Vanderyater, 1 Sandf. 265 ; Lawrence v. Gebbard, 41 Barb. 517 ; Humphreys v. Haven, 12 Minn. 298; Paige v. Stone, 10 Mete. 160; Combs v. Scott, 12 Allen, 493; Soné v. Palmer, 28 Mo. •539, last paragraph on 542; Pope v. Eisley, 23 Mo. 185 ; Swearingen v. ICnox, 10 Mo. 31; Wahrendorf v. Whitaker, 1 Mo. 146 ; Sweeting v. Pearce, 9 C. B. (n. s.) 534; Graham. v. United States Savings Assn., 46 Mo. 186 ; 1 Pars. on Notes & Bills, 119 ; Atkins v. Nicholson, 31 Mo. 448 ; Chouteau v. Pilley, 50 Mo. 174;…
1Opinion of the CourtLewis, J.
The petition charged defendants as indorsers of a promissory note for $370, executed in their favor by M. B. Lindsay, and by them indorsed and delivered to plaintiff. The indorsement was thus : “Diebold & Kienzle, by Geo.F. Cochnower, Agt. D. & K.” The sworn answer of defendants denied all knowledge of the note or of itsindorsement; denied that thejr had ever delivered it to' plaintiff, or that it was ever indorsed or delivered by any person having authority from them so to do. A reply was filed, alleging that the indorsement was made by an agent’ duly authorized by defendants for that…
2Cited by3 opinions
- City of St. Louis v. MeintzSupreme Court of Missouri · 1891
- Schlicker v. GordonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1885
- First Nat. Bank of Kansas City v. RushCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1898