Presbury v. Hull
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from St. Louis Cou/rt of Common Pleas. This is an action on a bond of indemnity, executed by Marcus A. Wolff as principal, and Hull as security. The action was instituted against both; but after the evidence was heard, the respondent dismissed as to the principal.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis Cou/rt of Common Pleas. This is an action on a bond of indemnity, executed by Marcus A. Wolff as principal, and Hull as security. The action was instituted against both; but after the evidence was heard, the respondent dismissed as to the principal. The circumstances under which the bond was made were as follows: The respondent and Wolff had been engaged in the money broker and exchange business, in the city of St. Louis, under the name of Presbury & Co. On the 15th day of October, 1855, Marcus A. Wolff was indicted, in the United States District Court for the district…
1Opinion of the CourtBates, Judge
The first instruction was properly refused because it required the court to determine a question of fact in stating that the refunding by the plaintiff to the holders of the land warrants was a voluntary act.
The record does not show that there was any error in the refusal of the third instruction. The balance sheet is not in the record, and we presume that the court below understood it correctly.
*34The record does not show what were the grounds of objection to the deposition of Perkins, and we therefore will not look into objections stated here.
The transcript of the record of the conviction of…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Jepson v. StubbsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1977
- State Ex Rel. Barrett v. SartoriusSupreme Court of Missouri · 1943
- James Francis Hill v. Correctional Officer GentryCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1960
- Fidelity and Deposit Co. of Md. v. BoundyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1942
- Crothers v. JonesSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1960
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.