Farmers' Bank of Missouri v. Bayless
Supreme Court of Missouri
Error to Ray Circuit Court. I. The note sued on in this case having been executed to the plaintiff by James F. Hudgens and Henry C. Garner in their individual names, and not in the partnership name of Wm. Hudgens & Co., (of which partnership defendants Bayless and Wm. Hudgens were members,) the same was not the note of, nor binding upon, said Bayless and Wm.
Read the full summary
Error to Ray Circuit Court. I. The note sued on in this case having been executed to the plaintiff by James F. Hudgens and Henry C. Garner in their individual names, and not in the partnership name of Wm. Hudgens & Co., (of which partnership defendants Bayless and Wm. Hudgens were members,) the same was not the note of, nor binding upon, said Bayless and Wm. Hudgens, and it makes no difference that the money for which said note was discounted was applied to the uses of said firm. (See Stor. on Part. § 134 to 142, § 102 ; Jaques v. Marquand, 6 Cow. 497; 3 Kent’s Com. 41-4; 8 Pick. 411; 9 Mass.…
1Opinion of the CourtBay, Judge
The Parmers’ Bank of Missouri brought suit in the Ray Circuit Court against John W. Shotwell, Adm’r of the estate of James P. Hudgens, dec’d, William Hudgens, Thomas H. Bayless, Henry C. Garner, George H. Stewart, and Thomas L. Shaw, upon a negotiable promissory note, of which the following is a copy: “$3,700. — Lexington, Mo., December 25th, 1862. Six months after date, we promise to pay to the order of G. H. Stewart thirty-seven hundred dollars, for value received, negotiable and payable, without defalcation or discount, at the Parmers’ Bank of Missouri. James P. Hudgens, H. C. Garner.”…
2Cited by9 opinions
- Gates v. WatsonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1874
- Farmers' Bank v. BaylissSupreme Court of Missouri · 1867
- Meader v. MalcolmSupreme Court of Missouri · 1883
- National Bank of Commerce v. MeaderSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1889
- Garner v. HudginsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1870
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.