Dorsey v. Watson
Supreme Court of Missouri
ERROR to St. Louis Circuit Court. STATEMENT OF THE CASE The plaintiff instituted suit against defendant, in the St. Louis circuit court, on a bill of exchange, drawn by a firm of which the defendant was a member on the 10th June, 1829, in favor of the plaintiff, and upon one Townsend, at St. Louis, payable in 40 days at the discount and deposite office of the U. S. Rank.
Read the full summary
ERROR to St. Louis Circuit Court. STATEMENT OF THE CASE The plaintiff instituted suit against defendant, in the St. Louis circuit court, on a bill of exchange, drawn by a firm of which the defendant was a member on the 10th June, 1829, in favor of the plaintiff, and upon one Townsend, at St. Louis, payable in 40 days at the discount and deposite office of the U. S. Rank. It was proved by a notary that at the request of tile cashier of the Bank at St. Louis, he presented the bill for payment, and that payment being refused, the bill was protested; and that notices were made out and handed to…
1Opinion of the CourtRyland, J.
From the above statement, it will be seen that the refusal of the court *62to give the instructions asked for by the plaintiff, is the only ground, upon which the interference of this court is sought.
The statement is full and contains the two instructions prayed for.
From an examination of the facts of this case, and after searching into the authorities, I am satisfied that the instructions ought to have been given. The case Sundie vs. Robertson, 7 East. Rep. 231, and the authorities cited in the* note to it are very satisfactory to me, that the promise made in this case, by the drawer,…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Givens v. Merchants' National BankIllinois Supreme Court · 1877
- Laumeier v. HallockMissouri Court of Appeals · 1903