75 Mo. 96 (Mo. 1881), Stix v. Matthews

Citation:75 Mo. 96
Opinion Judge:NORTON, J.
Party Name:STIX et al., Plaintiffs in Error, v. MATTHEWS.
Attorney:Frank Titus for plaintiff in error. Lathrop & Smith for defendant in error
Court:Supreme Court of Missouri

Page 96

75 Mo. 96 (Mo. 1881)

STIX et al., Plaintiffs in Error,

v.

MATTHEWS.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

October Term, 1881

Error to Jackson Special Law and Equity Court. --HON. R. E. COWAN, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Frank Titus for plaintiff in error.

Even if the first four notes were non-negotiable under the laws of Indiana, the petition alleged and the evidence is that the makers were non-residents of this State, and the defendants as assignees thereof, were liable. R. S. 1879, § 665.

Lathrop & Smith for defendant in error

NORTON, J.

This is a suit instituted by plaintiffs against defendants as indorsers on five notes as negotiable paper. There are five counts in the petition. In the first count the note declared upon was payable at the " Bank of Bedford, Lawrence county, Indiana; " in the second at the " Bedford Bank, Lawrence county, Indiana; " in the third at the " Bank in Bedford, Lawrence county, Indiana; " in the fourth at the " Bank in Bedford, Lawrence county, Indiana; " in the fifth the note was payable at the " Bank of Wheeling, West Virginia."

This cause has heretofore been before this court, and is reported in 63 Mo. 371, when the judgment of the circuit court was reversed and cause remanded because of the refusal of the court to instruct the jury that there was no evidence that defendants had proper notice of the dishonor of the notes sued upon, and for that reason plaintiff could not recover. It was then held that, as to notes executed in and made payable in Indiana, the question of their negotiability was to be determined by the laws of Indiana. It was also held that the allegation in the petition " that payment of the notes was refused by the cashier of the branch, at Bedford, of the Bank of the State of Indiana, said bank being the place where said notes were payable" not having been denied by answer, that both the notes and certificates of protest were receivable in evidence, but that notice of protest not having been brought home or given to defendants, the court erred in refusing the instruction asked. It was also held that, the notes showing upon their face that they were to be paid in a bank in Indiana, and nothing else appearing, under section 6, article 2 of the statutes of that state, they were negotiable.

The record now before us presents a different state of case from that presented in the record when the case was...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP