Lawson v. Gudgel
Supreme Court of Missouri
Error to Fifth District Court. cited 2 Greene, Iowa, 558 ; 20 Wis. 98 ; 19 Wend. 409 ; 6 Johns. 37; 5 East, 294 ; 3 Monr. 303 ; 10 U. S. Dig. 7, § 7 ; 11 U. S. Dig. 7, § 2 ; 20 Coav. 559 ; 20 Johns. 77 ; 8 Johns. 389 ; 15 Johns. 247 ; § Cow. 78 ; 19 Johns. 295 ; 5 Hill, 450 ; 17 Johns. 169 ; 28 Ind. 97 ; 1 Ind. 310; 5 Black, 71; 4 Greene, 544; 27 Maine, 370 ; 26 Maine, 88 ; 2 Mete. 285 ; 9 Cush. 150 ; Chit, on Bills, 524; 15 Johns. 248 ; 1 Hill, 516. cited Edw. on Bills and…
Read the full summary
Error to Fifth District Court. cited 2 Greene, Iowa, 558 ; 20 Wis. 98 ; 19 Wend. 409 ; 6 Johns. 37; 5 East, 294 ; 3 Monr. 303 ; 10 U. S. Dig. 7, § 7 ; 11 U. S. Dig. 7, § 2 ; 20 Coav. 559 ; 20 Johns. 77 ; 8 Johns. 389 ; 15 Johns. 247 ; § Cow. 78 ; 19 Johns. 295 ; 5 Hill, 450 ; 17 Johns. 169 ; 28 Ind. 97 ; 1 Ind. 310; 5 Black, 71; 4 Greene, 544; 27 Maine, 370 ; 26 Maine, 88 ; 2 Mete. 285 ; 9 Cush. 150 ; Chit, on Bills, 524; 15 Johns. 248 ; 1 Hill, 516. cited Edw. on Bills and Prom. Notes, 2d ed., 546; Boyd v. Hitchcock, 20 N. Y. 76 ; Sheely v. Mandeville, etc., 6 Cranch, 253 ; Appleton v.…
1Opinion of the CourtBliss, Judge
The plaintiffs brought suit upon a promissory note executed to them by defendant and one John T. Gudgel, deceased, and allege that the note is in the hands of defendant, but is unpaid. The defendant answers that he was surety upon the instrument for said John T. Gudgel ; that it became the sole property of James *481J. Lawson, one o£ tbe payees, whose wife was one of the heirs of said John T. Grudgel; and that it wras paid and satisfied in the following manner: the said heirs had, without administration, divided the estate of said John T. Grudgel among themselves, and, that they might not be…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Wellman v. Kaiser Investment Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1914