Martindale v. Hudson
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Barry Circuit Court. The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion of the court. I. The recovery against defendant as garnishee was a good bar to the action, and record should have been admitted in evidence.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Barry Circuit Court. The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion of the court. I. The recovery against defendant as garnishee was a good bar to the action, and record should have been admitted in evidence. (Wolf v. Cozzens, 4 Mo. 431.) And so if the note had been settled upon transfer, such settlement was a good bar. ”11. The answer charges that the transfers were fraudulently made for the mere purpose of preventing an offset; such transfer, if so made, would not prevent defendant from availing himself of any defence he might have to the note. The evidence tended to prove such…
1Opinion of the CourtRyland, Judge
This is a suit on a promissory note made by defendants, dated January 7,1856, payable to Thomas Martindale, ten months after date, for six hundred dollars, for value received. The plaintiff states that said Martindale, on the 19th of April, 1856, assigned by endorsement and delivered said note to one Charles O’Kelly. Plaintiff further states that said O’Kelly, on the 13th of September, 1856, assigned by endorsement and delivered said note to the said Thomas Mar-tindale. Plaintiff also further states that said Thomas Mar-tindale, on the 2d day of February, 1857, assigned by endorsement and…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Baker v. BrownSupreme Court of Missouri · 1847
3Cited by3 opinions
- Cutler v. CookSupreme Court of Missouri · 1883
- Dudding v. WhiteWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1918
- Fricke v. W. E. Fuetterer Battery & Supplies Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1926