Ivory v. Michael
Supreme Court of Missouri
Error to St. Louis Court of Common Pleas. I. The insertion in the blank of “ ten per cent, after maturity,” if material at all, was only materializo tanto — that is, for the difference between six and ten per cent., for the note would bear six per cent, after maturity. II.
Read the full summary
Error to St. Louis Court of Common Pleas. I. The insertion in the blank of “ ten per cent, after maturity,” if material at all, was only materializo tanto — that is, for the difference between six and ten per cent., for the note would bear six per cent, after maturity. II. The defendant Michael is bound by the insertion in the blank, not only on the score of presumed authority in Campbell to fill it up, but also for the reason that a party who endorses paper wholly or partially in blank is bound by any sum, or time, or terms of payment which the person to whom he entrusts the paper chooses to…
1Opinion of the CourtBat, Judge
This was a suit on a negotiable promissory note, against Campbell as maker, and Michael as endorser. The note is in the words and figures following:
“$1,100. — St. Louis, Mo., Sept. 30th, 1859. Thirty days after date I promise to pay to the order of Geo. B. Michael eleven hundred dollars, for value received, negotiable and payable without defalcation or discount, bearing ten per cent, after maturity. — T. Campbell. (Endorsed,) Geo. B. Michael.”
A default was taken against Campbell. Michael, the endorser, filed his answer, denying that he executed the note sued on, but admits that the…
2Cited by13 opinions
- Angle v. North-Western Mutual Life InsuranceSupreme Court of the United States · 1876
- Cronkhite v. NebekerIndiana Supreme Court · 1882
- J. W. Jenkins Sons Music Co. v. JohnsonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1914
- Farmers & Merchants National Bank v. NovichTexas Supreme Court · 1896
- Britton v. DierkerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1870
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.