Canefox v. Anderson
| Decision Date | 31 January 1856 |
| Citation | 22 Mo. 347 |
| Parties | CANEFOX, Respondent, v. ANDERSON & CRENSHAW, Appellants. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
1. A note is executed to three partners, two of whom upon a settlement of the partnership affairs, for value, sell and transfer by delivery their interest in the note to the third. Held, that the third might sue on the note in his own name.
Appeal from Greene Circuit Court.
The case is stated in the opinion of the court.
No appearance for appellant.
Wright and Morrow, for respondent.
This was a suit upon a promissory note, executed by defendants, payable to the plaintiffs, Thomas W. Anderson and Joseph Carthol, a firm by the name and style of B. W. Canefox & Co., or order, fifteen days after date, for four thousand seven hundred and seventy dollars and fifty seven cents, dated October 14, 1853.
In his petition, plaintiff avers that Thomas W. Anderson and Joseph Carthol sold their interests, respectively, in the said note to the plaintiff for a valuable consideration, by which the said note became the property of the plaintiff; that Thomas W. Anderson, on the 29th of October, 1853, paid on said note the sum of six hundred dollars; that the remainder of said note and interest are yet due to plaintiff, for which he asks judgment.
The defendants answered, stating that, as to the said supposed purchase of said note by plaintiff for a valuable consideration, whereby he became the owner thereof, they have not knowledge thereof sufficient to form a belief. The cause was submitted to the court for trial, without a jury, and the court found the facts to be, that the defendants, by their promissory note, dated October 14, 1853, promised, for value received, to pay plaintiff and Thomas W. Anderson and Joseph Carthol, (which was a firm trading and doing business by the name and style of B. W. Canefox & Co.,) or order, fifteen days after date, the sum of four thousand seven hundred and seventy dollars and fifty-seven cents, which note was executed in consideration of goods purchased of said firm; and afterwards, on the 28th day of October, 1853, and before said note became due, the said partners of said firm had a settlement of their affairs, and the said Thomas W. Anderson and Joseph Carthol, for a valuable consideration, and in consideration of indebtedness of said firm to plaintiff, sold and transferred all their interest in said note to plaintiff, by delivery; and said firm delivered said note to plain...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. and to Use of Donelon v. Deuser
... ... Stanton v. Jones, 332 Mo. 631, 59 S.W.2d 651; ... Kleinlein v. Foskin, 13 S.W.2d 659 ... Lyon ... Anderson, Herbert W. Ziercher and A. E. L ... Gardner for respondents ... (1) ... Plaintiff's Instruction 5 was erroneous for the ... ...
-
Smith v. Gregory
...7 Mo. 351; Jeffries v. McLean, 12 Mo. 538. One of two payees may assign all his interest in the note to the other payee, who may then sue. 22 Mo. 347; 5 Mo. 483. Although Brown, one of the payees in the note, was a member of the firm of Gregory & Brown, the makers of the note, yet Smith, on......
-
McClain v. Weidemeyer
...authorized to bring suit upon said note. (Practice Act, 1849, art. 3, secs. 1, 2 and 3; 14 Mo. 428; 18 Mo. 154; 18 Mo. 561; 19 Mo. 63; 22 Mo. 347.) F. P. Wright, for respondent. I. There was no legal transfer of the note to Corbin & Barnes. Martha Thompson, the payee, was a married woman. T......
- West v. Forrest