Downing v. Bourlier
| Decision Date | 31 March 1855 |
| Citation | 21 Mo. 149 |
| Parties | DOWNING & OTHERS, Defendants in Error, v. BOURLIER, Plaintiff in Error. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
1. A finding of facts which does not cover all the matters put in issue by the pleadings, is insufficient, and is a ground of reversal.
Error to St. Louis Circuit Court.
The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court.
J. L. Gillespie, for plaintiff in error.
Cline & Jamison, for defendants in error.
This action was upon a promissory note. The defendant in his answer says that the promissory note was delivered by the defendant to the plaintiffs in consideration of a sale made and delivery to be made by the plaintiffs to the defendant of a package of merchandise, consisting of certain articles of jewelry, which said package of merchandise, the said plaintiffs, though often requested, have refused and still do refuse to deliver to defendant. The answer also states that on the 5th day of October, 1854, the defendant made his certain promissory note, bearing date on the 10th of October, 1854, in which he promised two years after date to pay said plaintiffs twenty-eight hundred dollars and thirteen-hundredths of a dollar; and the defendant also on said 5th of October, 1854, drew his certain bill of exchange, commonly called a draft, bearing date the 10th of October, 1854, for twenty-six hundred and twenty-five dollars, payable to said plaintiffs, sixty days from date, which said note and bill of exchange were delivered to and are still held and owned by said plaintiffs, and which were received by said plaintiffs as satisfaction in full of all demands had by said plaintiffs against said defendant on the 5th of October, 1854. He files a copy of receipt, the original being on file in another cause, which receipt is as follows:
“Received, St. Louis, October 5th, 1854, of Mr. P. Bourlier, one draft on A. Quenelle, Esq., at sixty days, dated October 10, 1854, for $2,625, and one note at two years, same date, for $2,800 13, the same, if accepted and endorsed by A. Quenelle, when paid, to cover all indebtedness of said Bourlier. If said A. Quenelle does not accept or endorse said note and draft, the same are to be returned to Mr. Bourlier. Mr. Bourlier does not claim the right to draw on Mr. Quenelle, but merely hopes that he may be induced to assist him in this way.
G. R. DOWNING & CO.”
The parties went to trial without a jury, and the court rendered judgment for the plaintiffs upon...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Holland Banking Co. v. Republic Nat. Bank
... ... Co. v. Ry. Co., 220 Mo.App. 743, ... 276 S.W. 413; Pemiscot Co. Bk. v. Tower Grove Bank, ... 204 Mo.App. 441, 223 S.W. 115; Downing v. Bourlier, ... 21 Mo. 149. (8) It is beyond the powers of a director or of a ... board of directors to give away the assets of a corporation, ... ...
-
Welch-Sandler Cement Co. v. Mullins
...may be raised in the appellate court, although not properly saved in the trial court by motion in arrest or otherwise. Downing et al. v. Bourlier, 21 Mo. 149. But if the verdict is merely defective, the trial court must be given an opportunity to correct it, or objections thereto are waived......
-
Holland Banking Co. v. Republic Natl. Bank
...Lbr. Co. v. Ry. Co., 220 Mo. App. 743, 276 S.W. 413; Pemiscot Co. Bk. v. Tower Grove Bank, 204 Mo. App. 441, 223 S.W. 115; Downing v. Bourlier, 21 Mo. 149. (8) It is beyond the powers of a director or of a board of directors to give away the assets of a corporation, either by resolution, in......
-
Ragan v. McCoy
...dedication set up in the answer. There was no order to account and no reference. (R. C. 1845, tit. Account; 1 Wheat. Selw. 5; 1 Mo. 514; 21 Mo. 149.) Sheley, for defendants in error. I. A ferry privilege is an incident to lands. The owner may sell the land and reserve the privilege. (9 S. &......