Coquard v. Bank of Kansas City

Decision Date23 May 1882
Citation12 Mo.App. 261
PartiesL. A. COQUARD, Appellant, v. BANK OF KANSAS CITY, Respondent.
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

1. The words “past-due interest” used in a contract, mean interest which has matured and which is collectable on demand.

2. Evidence of a custom among brokers of one place is inadmissible as against the defendant, a resident of another place, when unaccompanied by an offer to show that the latter knew of the custom and contracted with reference to it.

APPEAL from the St. Louis Circuit Court, BOYLE, J.

Affirmed.

FISHER & ROWELL, for the appellant.

DYER & ELLIS, for the respondent.

BAKEWELL, J., delivered the opinion of the court.

This action was begun before a justice of the peace. The statement of plaintiff is to the effect that he sold to defendant, in the city of St. Louis, $18,000 in Jackson County bonds and past-due interest, for the sum of $19,310.22; that defendant paid him $19,008, leaving due a balance of $302, which is due plaintiff. He gives a voluntary credit for $52.22, leaving $250, for which he asks judgment.

On trial anew in the circuit court, a jury was waived, and there was a finding and judgment for defendant.

It was admitted that defendant is a corporation having its business office at Kansas City, Missouri, and no office in St. Louis, and that J. S. Chick is its president.

It appears from the evidence that the following telegraphic dispatches passed between Chick and Coquard. They were dated and received at the dates placed before each telegram; those sent by Chick are all sent from Kansas City to St. Louis; and those sent by Coquard were all sent from St. Louis to Kansas City.

October 21, 1880, Coquard to Chick: “I offer you, subject to prior sale, $25,000 Jackson 8's at ninety-two on principal and past-due interest to date. Wire me, if you accept.”

October 22, 1880, Chick to Coquard: “Will take Jacksons at ninety on principal and past-due interest.”

It will be observed that Chick does not accept the offer. He makes an offer at a lower price, and he omits the words “to date,” in his reply.

October 22, 1880, Coquard to Chick: “Seven thousand are sold. Accept your offer for eighteen thousand. Instruct your bank here to accept, and advise me where to deliver.”

October 22, 1880, Chick to Coquard: We accept eighteen thousand bonds. How many coupons attached? Instructions by to-night's mail as to delivery.”

October 22, 1880, Coquard to Chick: “All right. Six hold all coupons, ten hold two, two hold. But one each must be taken up in St. Louis.”

On the 22d, Coquard writes to Chick that, by exchange of telegrams, he has sold him $18,000 Jackson County eight per cent bonds at ninety cents on the dollar on the principal and past-due interest to date, delivered at St. Louis, and awaits instructions where to deliver them. The bonds are described as $6,000, with all past-due coupons on; $10,000, with two past-due coupons on each; $2,000, with one past-due coupon on each.

On the 22d, Chick writes to Coquard that he has instructed J. C. Moore to receive from Coquard $18,000 Jackson County bonds, and pay $16,200 for them; also, to pay for each past-due coupon attached, $36, in accordance with the offer of Coquard by telegraph accepted on that day.

On the 23rd of October, the following telegrams were sent and received:--

Coquard to Chick: “My offer was on principal and interest to date. You accepted same. Please instruct your bank here accordingly, quick.”

Chick to Coquard: “Your offer was on principal and past-due interest. See your letter and our answer.”

Coquard to Chick: “Bonds carry interest from August 1st. I did not say on past-due coupons. Instruct your bank here at once.”

Chick to Coquard: “Your offer was on principal and past-due interest. No further instructions to give.”

On the 23rd of October, Chick wrote to Coquard: “Your favor of the 22d, as well as your telegram of this date, are received. I cannot see how there can be any misunderstanding between us, and I have instructed the Merchants' National Bank to pay you, as I understand it, in accordance with your offer and my proposition,--that is, ninety cents on dollar for principal and past-due interest. That is, if bond amounted to $1,000, and one past-due coupon 40-1040, I would pay you ninety cents on the dollar for the same, or $936. I cannot construe the trade in any other way. But, if you construe it differently, consider the trade off.”

On the 23rd, and apparently before receiving the last letter, Coquard writes to Chick acknowledging the letter of 23rd and telegrams of 23rd, enclosing his account, and stating that he delivered the $18,000 bonds to Moore, cashier of the Merchants' National...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • New York Coal Co. v. New Pittsburgh Coal Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Ohio
    • June 5, 1912
    ......E. 715;Wonsetler v. Andrews, 58 Ohio St. 551, 51 N. E. 168;City v. Gas Co., 76 Ohio St. 309, 81 N. E. 440; Jefferys v. Fairs, L. R., 4 Ch. ...Carrington, Patton & Co., 116 Ill. App. 410;Citizens' State Bank v. Chambers, 129 Iowa, 414, 105 N. W. 692;[Ohio St. 153]Oriental Lumber ...Maddox, 16 L. J. Exch. 227; Cochran v. Retberg, 3 Esp. 121; Coquard v. Bank, 12 Mo. App. 261; Humfrey v. Dale, 7 El. & Bl. 265; Brown v. ......
  • Strauss v. Nichols Land Co., 29352.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • March 25, 1931
    ...that the same shall be signed by all the owners of Lots 1 to 9 inclusive of Block 12. A majority only is required. Coquard v. Bank of Kansas City, 12 Mo. App. 261; Citizens and Taxpayers v. Williams, 37 L.R.A. 761; School District v. Oellien, 209 Mo. 469; Davis v. Claus, 100 S.W. 265, 125 K......
  • Strauss v. J. C. Nichols Land Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • March 25, 1931
    ...... Block 12. A majority only is required. Coquard v. Bank of. Kansas City, 12 Mo.App. 261; Citizens and Taxpayers. v. ......
  • Grovier Produce Co. v. T. C. Bottom Produce Co.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • February 17, 1919
    ...with the knowledge of a custom. A custom in one place must be known to the party to be affected residing in another place. Coquard v. Bank, 12 Mo. App. 261; Walsh v. Transportation Co., 52 Mo. 434; Goodfellow's Ex'rs v. Meegan, 32 Mo. 280; McSherry r. Blanchfield, 68 Kan. 310, 75 Pac. 121. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT