Davenport National Bank v. Homeyer
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from, St. Louis Circuit Court. 'Tbe 'mere delivery of the receipts gave the respondent no title to the property covered by them, and no claim upon the fund realized from its sale, there being no indorsement or appropriate written words of assignment. (Conant v. Atlantic Ins. Co., 1 Pet. 386, 445; Merch. & Mech. Bank of Chicago v. Hewitt, 3 Iowa, 93, 103 ; Law v. Hatcher, 4 Blackf. 364-6; Conrad v. Atlantic Ins.
Read the full summary
Appeal from, St. Louis Circuit Court. 'Tbe 'mere delivery of the receipts gave the respondent no title to the property covered by them, and no claim upon the fund realized from its sale, there being no indorsement or appropriate written words of assignment. (Conant v. Atlantic Ins. Co., 1 Pet. 386, 445; Merch. & Mech. Bank of Chicago v. Hewitt, 3 Iowa, 93, 103 ; Law v. Hatcher, 4 Blackf. 364-6; Conrad v. Atlantic Ins. Co., approved in Gibson v. Stevens, 8 How., U. S., 384, 399 ; Salters v. Everett, 20 Wend. 267, 280 ; Winslow v. Norton, 29 Me. 419; Newsom v. Thornton, 6 East, 17, 41; Stone v.…
1Opinion of the CourtCurrier, Judge
In February, 1867, S. M. & D. A. Burrows, of Davenport; Iowa, consigned to the defendants, as their factors or commission merchants, 300 barrels of flour. The flour was shipped by railroad in two parcels, and the usual bills of lading issued therefor by the carrier. The consignors at the same time drew on the consignees, against the flour, three drafts of $900 each. *148These drafts were discounted by the plaintiffs upon the faith of the bills of lading, which were deposited with them as collateral security. The bills of lading were not indorsed or formally. assigned in writing. They were…
2Cited by14 opinions
- Scharff v. MeyerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1896
- Midland National Bank v. Missouri, Kansas & Texas RailroadMissouri Court of Appeals · 1895
- Boulware v. CrohnMissouri Court of Appeals · 1907
- Hutchings v. Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1911
- American Zinc, Lead & Smelting Co. v. Markle Lead WorksMissouri Court of Appeals · 1903
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.