Bank of Hatch v. Mossman
New Mexico Supreme Court
Appeal from District Court, Dona Ana County,- E. L. Mecller, Judge. Action by the Bank of Hatch against W. C. Mossman. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Under facts of this case the First' State Bank was the agent of the appellee and not the agent for collection of appellant. Moore & Co. v. Meyer, 57 Ala. 20. Clemons v. Livingston Co. Mut. F. Ins. Co., 12 N. Y. Supp. 433. Ripley Nat. Bank v. Conn. M. L. Ins.
Read the full summary
Appeal from District Court, Dona Ana County,- E. L. Mecller, Judge. Action by the Bank of Hatch against W. C. Mossman. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Under facts of this case the First' State Bank was the agent of the appellee and not the agent for collection of appellant. Moore & Co. v. Meyer, 57 Ala. 20. Clemons v. Livingston Co. Mut. F. Ins. Co., 12 N. Y. Supp. 433. Ripley Nat. Bank v. Conn. M. L. Ins. Co., 47 SW 1. Moore V. Pollock, 70 N. W. 541. Indig v. Nat. City B. 80 N. Y. 100. 59 How Pr. 10. Baldwin’s Bank of Penn Yan v. Smith et al., 136 N. Y. Supp. 349.…
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
RAYNOLDS, J.
(after stating the facts as above). As shown by the evidence and the findings of fact, the note in question was guaranteed by the First State Bank to the appellant, and it was also indorsed by the appellant to the First State Bank. It appears that the trial court attached some importance to these transactions, but the appellant urges upon us that the answer sets up no such defense; the sole defense-being that the Bank of Hatch sent the note in question to the First State Bank, that the First State Bank acted as agent for appellant, and that the appellee paid…
2Cited by4 opinions
- South Second Livestock Auction, Inc. v. RobertsNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1961
- Wagner v. SpaethWyoming Supreme Court · 1927
- De Laval Separator Co. v. HildahlSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1930
- La Luz Community Ditch Co. v. Town of AlamogordoNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1929