Beeler v. Frost
| Decision Date | 31 October 1879 |
| Citation | 70 Mo. 185 |
| Parties | BEELER v. FROST, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Crawford Circuit Court.--HON. V. B. HILL, Judge.
REVERSED.
C. C. Bland for appellant.
J. C. Kiskaddon for respondent.
Plaintiff, in her amended, petition, states that, on the 6th day of October, 1869, the defendants C. E. Frost and G. J. Wiley, executed and delivered to defendant, E. F. Frost, their promissory note of that date, whereby they promised to pay to the order of said E. F. Frost, for value received, one day after date thereof, the sum of $1,000, negotiable and payable without defalcation or discount, and with interest from date at the rate of ten per cent. per annum, and that afterwards, and after the note was due, the said E. F. Frost, for value received, indorsed said note and delivered it to plaintiff, who is now the legal holder and owner thereof, and that at the time of such indorsement and delivery, the said E. F. Frost waived the necessity of the presentment of said note for payment to the makers thereof, and that said E. F. Frost waived the necessity of notice of presentment and demand of payment; that interest on said note has been paid up to the 6th day of October, 1872, and that said note, together with interest thereon, is yet due. Defendants, C. E. Frost and G. J. Wiley, did not answer. Defendant, E. F. Frost, filed an answer, in which he denied the averment contained in the petition that he had waived the necessity of notice and demand of payment on said note, and averred that notice of presentment and demand of payment of said note had never been given him. Upon trial had, judgment was rendered for plaintiff, from which defendant has appealed to this court.
It is settled by the following cases that to render an indorser of a negotiable promissory note indorsed after maturity, liable as indorser, the holder or indorsee must demand payment of the maker and give notice to the indorser of such demand and refusal to pay: Davis v. Francisco, 11 Mo. 573; Light v. Kingsbury, 50 Mo. 332; Armstrong v. Armstrong, 36 Mo. 225. The pleader, by his petition, admits this rule, but to avoid the effect of it, alleges a waiver by the indorser at the time of the indorsement, of the necessity of notice of presentment and demand of payment. This having been put in issue by the answer, the plaintiff, to sustain her averment, offered on the trial parol evidence tending to show that such waiver of notice was made by defendant at the time of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kelly v. Staed
...is equivalent to drawing a new bill at sight, and the same diligence in making demand and giving notice is required." See, also, Beeler v. Frost, 70 Mo. 185. rule does not apply where the bill or note has been paid by the acceptor or maker at or after maturity, for in that case it becomes e......
-
McGuire v. Allen
... ... contract has been treated as if written out at large ... Rodney v. Wilson (1877), 67 Mo. 123; Beeler v ... Frost (1879), 70 Mo. 185; Lewis v. Dunlap ... (1880), 72 Mo. 174; Gardner v. Mathews (1884), 81 ... In ... those ... ...
-
Kelly v. Staed
...maturity is equivalent to drawing a new bill at sight, and diligence is required in making demand and giving notice." See, also, Beeler v. Frost, 70 Mo. 185. This rule does not apply where the bill or note has been paid by the acceptor or maker at or after maturity, for in that case it beco......
-
Gate City National Bank v. Schmidt
...to charge the indorser." [Light v. Kingsbury, 50 Mo. 331; Davis v. Francisco, 11 Mo. 572; Armstrong v. Armstrong, 36 Mo. 225; Beeler v. Frost, 70 Mo. 185; Jacobs Gibson, 77 Mo.App. 244.] Such demand and notice must be made and given in a reasonable time and, as is said in Foley v. Brewing C......