Clerks' Sav. Bank v. Thomas
| Citation | 2 Mo.App. 367 |
| Parties | CLERKS' SAVINGS BANK, Appellant, v. MARY THOMAS et al., Respondents. |
| Decision Date | 06 June 1876 |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Missouri (US) |
1. A non-juridical day, on which no record can be kept, is not to be reckoned in calculating time for filing pleas or motions.
2. Notice to a director of a bank of facts affecting the character of negotiable paper is notice to the bank.
APPEAL from St. Louis Circuit Court.
Affirmed.
D. W. Sadler, for appellant, cited: Northamton v. Mississippi Valley Ins. Co., 47 Mo. 444; Walled v. Parker, 6 Wend. 616; Woodhull v. Holmes, 10 Johns. 231; DeBaum v. Atchison, 14 Mo. 543; Mechanics' Bank v. State Board, etc., 10 Wall. 646; Patter v. Dillon, 7 Mo. 228; Farmers & Mechanics' Bank v. Butchers & Drovers' Bank, 14 N. Y. 623, and 16 N. Y. 125; Smith v. Clark & Co., 54 Mo. 58; State of Illinois v. Delefield, 2 Hill, 159; Gullick v. Glover, 33 N. J. L. (400) 463; McFarland v. Bellews, 49 Mo. 311; Alexander v. Harrison, 38 Mo. 258; Story on Ag., secs. 55, 59, 87, 92, 104; Weaver v. Ogle-tree, 39 Ga. 586; The State v. Homes, 17 Mo. 379; Chappell v. Allen, 38 Mo. 213; Rose v. Spies, 44 Mo. 20; National Bank v. Currie, 44 Mo. 91; Meyer v. Pacific R. R. Co., 45 Mo. 137; Mead v. Brutherton, 30 Mo. 201; Exchange Bank v. Monteith, 36 N. Y. 505; New York & New Hampshire R. R. Co. v. Schnyder et al., 34 N. Y. 30; Magee v. Badger, 34 N. Y. 247; Grisnole v. Haven, 25 N. Y. 602.
Krum, Madill & Jewett, for respondents, cited: Wag. Stat. 1059; National Bank of the Metropolis v. Williams, 46 Mo. 17; Wenst v. Schroeder, 40 Mo. 602.
This is a suit on two negotiable promissory notes--one for $4,000, made by Thomas P. Morse and John D. Daggett, payable to the order of the Sectional Dock Company, and indorsed, “Sectional Dock Co., by Charles Drew, jr., Fin. Agt.,” and also indorsed by Charles Drew, jr.; the other note is for $12,000, signed, “Sectional Dock Co., by Charles Drew, jr., Fin. Agt.,” payable to the order of T. P. Morse & Co., and by them indorsed to plaintiff.
The defense is that defendants, who are said to have been members of a copartnership called the Sectional Dock Company, never authorized the making or indorsing of this paper, which was made and indorsed by Charles Drew, jr., then secretary and business manager, for the accommodation of the firm of T. P. Morse & Co., of which he was a member, and that plaintiffs had notice of this fact.
The case is one growing out of the state of facts fully set out in the opinion rendered at this term in the cases of Edwards v. Thomas and Whittaker v. Thomas. A fuller statement is not needed for the purposes of this opinion.
There was a verdict and judgment below for defendant, and plaintiff brings the cause here by appeal.
It is said by counsel for respondent that, inasmuch as no exceptions were saved to the rulings of the court below, in giving or refusing instructions, and because the motion for a new trial was not filed within four days, there is nothing in this record at which we can look.
We think the motion for a new trial was filed in time. The verdict was rendered on Saturday, March 14th, in courtroom No. 5. On the Monday following, according to its rules, the Circuit Court was sitting in general term. On March 16th, 20th, and 23d, and on no other days, up to the date of filing this motion, Circuit Court No. 5 was in actual session. On the 23d the motion for a new trial was filed. This was a compliance with the law. The days are to be juridical days--court days--on which minutes are kept. The fact that the Circuit Court was sitting in general term did not make the days in which Court No. 5 was not in session, at special term, juridical days of Court No. 5. A day of which no record can be kept is not to be counted as a day in calculating time for filing either pleas or motions in cases pending in court
No exception having been saved to the action of the Circuit Court in granting or refusing instructions, we shall not examine the declarations of law given by the court to the jury.
The only matter which this record saves, and which is before us for consideration, is the action of the court in admitting certain...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Springer v. Kleinsorge
...four judicial days--to which the respondent was entitled. Nat. Bank v. Williams, 46 Mo. 17; Daubert v. Rocker, 4 Mo. App. 590; Bank v. Thomas, 2 Mo. App. 367. A motion for rehearing is unnecessary in an equity case. Butler v. Lawson, 72 Mo. 227. (3) There is no evidence to show by-bidding a......
-
Atchison v. Solorzano.
...is less than a week, such intervening Sunday is excluded. In support of this rule the following authorities are cited: Clerk's Savings Bank v. Thomas, 2 Mo. App. 367; National Bank v. Williams, 46 Mo. 17; Lewis v. Schwenn, 15 Mo. App. 342; Hosli v. Yokel, 57 Mo. App. 622; State v. Harris, 1......
-
Penfield Investment Company v. Bruce
... ... capacity would not be binding upon plaintiff. Bank v ... Froman, 129 Mo. 430; Benton v. Bank, 122 Mo ... 339; Bank v ... time he was acting for the corporation. In Bank v ... Thomas, 2 Mo.App. 367, it was held: "That notice to ... a director of a bank of ... ...
-
LeWis v. Schwenn
...cases there cited; National Bank of the Metropolis v. Williams, 46 Mo. 17, approved in Patchin v. Bonsack, 52 Mo. 433; Clerks' Savings Bank v. Thomas, 2 Mo. App. 367. The deed of trust was insufficient in itself to show authority in the trustee to sell, even if not objected to, as there was......