Legal Opinion

Cottondale Planting Co. v. Diehlstadt Bank

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided July 17, 1926PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBradley, J.

— This is an action to have allowed as a preferred claim a demand against the Diehlstadt Bank in the hands of the commissioner of finance for liquidation. The court below refused to give the demand preference and this appeal followed.

Plaintiff’s claim for preference is based on two theories, and these are stated in separate counts in the petition. The first theory is that in handling the draft in question the relation of principal and agent, and not that of debtor and creditor, existed; The second theory is that even though the relation of debtor and creditor was created by the transaction…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Midland National Bank of Kansas City v. BrightwellSupreme Court of Missouri · 1899
  2. Ayres v. Farmers & Merchants BankSupreme Court of Missouri · 1883
  3. Scott v. W. H. McIntyre Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1914
  4. Jefferson Bank v. Merchants Refrigrating Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1911
  5. Kavanaugh v. Farmers' Bank of MaitlandMissouri Court of Appeals · 1894

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Andrew v. Security Trust & Savings BankSupreme Court of Iowa · 1932
  2. Ronchetto v. State Bank of BevierMissouri Court of Appeals · 1932
  3. National City Bank v. MacOn Creamery Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1932

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API