Bond v. Bemis
| Decision Date | 28 February 1874 |
| Citation | 55 Mo. 524 |
| Parties | BENSON BOND, Defendant in Error, v. LUKE W. BEMIS, Plaintiff in Error. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Error to Clay Circuit Court.
D. C. Allen, for Plaintiff in Error
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 thereupon rendered a final judgment against defendant for the amount of the note, and the defendant filed motions for a new trial, &c., which were overruled and exceptions duly saved.
The law is well settled, that one partner cannot maintain an action at law against his co-partner for money paid on account...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Robert v. Davis
...no right to sue at law. Hence plaintiff had no "adequate remedy at law." Strothert v. Knox, 5 Mo. 112; Scott v. Caruth, 50 Mo. 120; Bond v. Bemis, 55 Mo. 524; Glaus v. Gosche, 118 S.W.2d 42. (2) Pomeroy v. Benton, 57 Mo. 531; Filbrun v. Ivers, 92 Mo. 388; Scott v. Thompson, 222 S.W. 115; He......
-
Robert v. Davis
...no right to sue at law. Hence plaintiff had no "adequate remedy at law." Strothert v. Knox, 5 Mo. 112; Scott v. Caruth, 50 Mo. 120; Bond v. Bemis, 55 Mo. 524; Glaus v. Gosche, 118 S.W. (2d) 42. (2) Pomeroy v. Benton, 57 Mo. 531; Filbrun v. Ivers, 92 Mo. 388; Scott v. Thompson, 222 S.W. 115;......
-
Gilliam v. Loeb
...in contract or tort. Baldwin v. Walsen, 41 Mo.App. 243; Morin v. Martin, 25 Mo. 361; Leckie v. Rothenbarger, 82 Mo.App. 615; Bond v. Benis, 55 Mo. 524; Scott Coruth, 50 Mo. 120; 62 Mo.App. 131. (3) The amended statement was properly stricken out, as attempting to change a joint to a several......
-
Hodges v. Black
...112; Springer v. Cabell, 10 Mo. 640; McKnight v. McCutchen, 27 Mo. 436; Smith v. Smith, 33 Mo. 557; Scott v. Caruth, 50 Mo. 120; Bond v. Bemis, 55 Mo. 524; Leabo v. Renshaw, 61 Mo. 292; Ives v. Miller, 19 Barb. 196; Richardson v. Bank, 4 Myl. & Cr. 165; Stoddard v. Wood, 9 Gray, 90; Story o......