Bompart's Administrator v. Lucas
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from St. Louis Court of Common Pleas. The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion of the court. 1. The note in question ’having been once delivered, a suit can be maintained on it, notwithstanding a subsequent voluntary delivery of the note to Patterson to be held until the quit claim deed mentioned in said receipt of Patterson was executed. The delivery was absolute.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis Court of Common Pleas. The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion of the court. 1. The note in question ’having been once delivered, a suit can be maintained on it, notwithstanding a subsequent voluntary delivery of the note to Patterson to be held until the quit claim deed mentioned in said receipt of Patterson was executed. The delivery was absolute. If one make a deed and deliver it to the party to whom it is made as an escrow upon certain conditions, the delivery is absolute and the deed shall take effect as his deed. (Fairbank v. Metcalf, 8 Mass. 238, per…
1Opinion of the CourtRyland, Judge
This is a petition upon a promissory note, twice assigned; the plaintiff asks payment for the amount of the note, and alleges it to-be in the possession of the defendants agent, H. L. Patterson. In an amended petition, there is alleged the proceedings in the Probate Court, in relation to a compromise between the defendants and Charles Roderman, to whom the note was given ; and that a deed was made accordingly by which the land described therein was conveyed to the defendants, James H. Lucas and Ann L. Hunt.
The defendants answer that three minor heirs of Francis Bompart claimed an interest in…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Linville v. RipleyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1943
- Shaw v. NicholaySupreme Court of Missouri · 1860
- Bompart's Administrator v. LucasSupreme Court of Missouri · 1862