55 Mo. 524 (Mo. 1874), Bond v. Bemis

Citation:55 Mo. 524
Opinion Judge:ADAMS, Judge.
Party Name:BENSON BOND, Defendant in Error, v. LUKE W. BEMIS, Plaintiff in Error.
Attorney:D. C. Allen, for Plaintiff in Error??
Court:Supreme Court of Missouri

Page 524

55 Mo. 524 (Mo. 1874)

BENSON BOND, Defendant in Error,


LUKE W. BEMIS, Plaintiff in Error.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

February Term, 1874

Error to Clay Circuit Court.

D. C. Allen, for Plaintiff in Error??


ADAMS, Judge.

This was an action on a promissory note for five hundred dollars.

The note is a negotiable note and reads as follows:

($500.00.) ST. LOUIS, October 27th, 1868.
Thirty days after date, I promise to pay to the order of Benson Bond, Five Hundred Dollars for value received, negotiable and payable without defalcation or discount at ________________. L. W. BEMIS. On which note the name of the plaintiff " Benson Bond" appears to have been indorsed in blank. The defendant by way of answer to plaintiff's petition founded on his note, substantially set up the averment that prior to the making of said note, he and plaintiff had been in partnership in business in the City of St. Louis, and that the firm was indebted to the amount of some eight thousand dollars; and that the plaintiff retired from the firm under an agreement that the debts due from the firm were to be renewed in the name of the defendant with the plaintiff as indorser, but that they were still to remain the debts of the firm till paid off; and defendant was to carry on the business in his own name for himself, and collect the assets of the firm and pay the debts; that, being pressed for money to pay some debts, they applied to the National Bank of the State of Missouri for five hundred dollars, and borrowed that amount of that bank, and gave the promissory note in suit for the same, with said defendant as principal and the plaintiff as indorser; that this money was paid to the defendant and he paid it over on said debt of said firm. He then charges in substance, that this debt to the bank was a firm debt, and if paid by the plaintiff is still one of the firm debts and must be adjusted on final settlement; that no settlement has yet been made nor any balance struck of their partnership matters. The court on motion of plaintiff struck out this answer as forming no defense to plaintiff's petition. And to this action of the court the defendant excepted. The court...

To continue reading