Bank of Missouri v. McKnight's Heirs
| Decision Date | 31 May 1828 |
| Citation | 2 Mo. 42 |
| Parties | THE BANK OF MISSOURI v. MCKNIGHT'S HEIRS. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
ERROR FROM ST. LOUIS CIRCUIT COURT.
This was a proceeding by petition, under our statute, to foreclose a mortgage executed by Thomas McKnight, as the attorney of his brother, John, to the President, Directors and Co. of the Bank of Missouri. John McKnight having died, his heirs were made parties, who pleaded specially: First. That the said Thomas McKnight had no good and sufficient authority from said John to execute said mortgage. Second. That said mortgage was fraudulently executed by said Thomas McKnight, in the name of the said John, without any good and sufficient authority; and Third. That said plaintiff fraudulently procured said mortgage to be executed by said Thomas, &c. Fourth. Non est fatum generally. The cause was submitted to the court sitting as a jury, who found the issue on the fourth plea for the plaintiff, and the issues on the other three for the defendants, and gave judgment accordingly; to reverse which the present writ of error is prosecuted. The testimony given in the cause is all on the side of the plaintiff, and is preserved in a bill of exceptions, consisting of two several powers of attorney from John to Thomas McKnight, executed on the same day, the mortgage sued on and parol proof, that at the time of the execution of said mortgage, the said John and Thomas McKnight were severally indebted to the plaintiffs, and also that each of them, as endorser for the other, was then indebted to the plaintiffs. The first power of attorney authorized said Thomas, “as substitute and proxy, (of said John) to vote at any election for directors for the Bank of Missouri, or on any other question that may be put at a stated or special meeting of the stockholders of the said bank, and to do all other acts and things in relation to the business of said bank which I, myself, might or could do were I personally present, by virtue of my stock of said bank, held by me individually or jointly with others; and to ask, demand, receive all dividends accruing on any such stock, and all other sum or sums of money due or to become due to me from said bank, and to make and give acquittances or other sufficient discharges for the same; and also to sell, transfer and assign all my right, title and interest in and to all and every the shares of the capital stock of said bank, held by me individually or jointly with others; and also for me and in my name to make, execute and deliver all promissory notes and bills of exchange; and to endorse, assign and transfer any bill or note, and to draw all checks which shall be necessary and proper in and about the transaction of any business with, in, or through said bank; and generally to do and perform all and every other act and thing in the premises, and in transacting my affairs and business with, in, through, or concerning said bank,” &c.
The second power gives authority to said Thomas “to lease, let, seil o demise, as he might think fit, sundry tracts and parcels of lands therein particularly named and described, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Orr v. Rode
... ... to convey certain land described in Buchanan county, ... Missouri, to defendant Brown, in trust to secure the payment ... of a promissory ... found out I had some money here in Mr. Beattie's bank, ... and he called my attention to it, and told me that it might ... as ... Loebenthal v. Raleigh, 36 N.J.Eq. 169; Bank v ... McKnight's Heirs, 2 Mo. 42. Moreover, the law ... requires no more than a substantial ... ...
-
Homan v. Brooklyn Life Ins. Co.
...alleged, but also the authority of the agent, with whom he claimed to have made it, to make the contract on behalf of appellant.-- Bank v. McKnight, 2 Mo. 42; Swearingen v. Knox, 10 Mo. 31; Sone v. Palmer, 28 Mo. 539; First National Bank v. Hogan, 46 Mo. 472; Wahrendorf v. Whitaker, 1 Mo. 2......
-
Orr v. Rode
...is, in its nature, merely a conditional sale. Hill, Trustees, (2d Amer. Ed.) § 475; Loebenthal v. Raleigh, 36 N. J. Eq. 172; Bank v. McKnight's Heirs, 2 Mo. 42. Moreover, the law requires no more than a substantial execution of the powers conferred on such a trustee. Warner v. Insurance Co.......
-
Lamy v. Burr
...be bound by such notes? and if Wilson could do this, could he not also execute mortgages to secure the payment of such notes? (Bank of Mo. v. McKnight, 2 Mo. 42; Taylor v. Labeaume, 14 Mo. 572; Taylor v. Bennett, 17 Mo. 338; Sto. on Ag. § 126.) II. The principle that an agent cannot delegat......