Eggemann v. Henschen
| Decision Date | 31 March 1874 |
| Citation | 56 Mo. 123 |
| Parties | HERMANN EGGEMANN, Appellant, v. C. HENRY HENSCHEN, Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court.
E. C. Kehr, for Appellant.
The indorser, having assented to the release of his maker, is not discharged.
Lubke & Player, for Respondent.
This was an action by the plaintiff as holder, against the defendant as indorser, of the following negotiable promissory note:
“ST. LOUIS, December, 1st, 1867.
Three years after date, we promise to pay to the order of C. H. Henschen, One Thousand Dollars, for value received, negotiable and payable without defalcation or discount with interest at the rate of eight (8) per centum per annum.
HENSCHEN, KRITE, & Co.
Indorsed, “C. H. HENSCHEN.”
At maturity this note was duly protested for non-payment and due notice thereof served on the defendant.
The defense relied on was, that the note before maturity had been released or satisfied by a composition deed made by Henschen Krite & Co. the provisions of which the plaintiff, as holder of this note, had accepted in satisfaction of the same. This composion deed was passed on in the case of Diermeyer vs. Hackman (52 Mo., 282), where it was held to be a release by the creditors of their debts. The note sued on was listed as one of the debts under this deed of composition.
The plaintiff, however, claims that this note was held by him as guardian for minor children, and that he did not intend to embrace it amongst the debts to be released. But whether he so intended or not, he did in point of fact list it as one of the debts. It is a negotiable note, indorsed by the defendant in blank, and which had been transferred to the plaintiff by delivery. There is nothing on the face of the note to show that it was held in trust, and the plaintiff had the right to treat it as his own, and did in fact claim it as his individual property by listing it as such under the deed of composition.
Under the rule laid down in Diermeyer vs. Hackman, supra, this note, so far as the makers are concerned, was satisfied by the deed of composition.
The defendant also signed the resolution to accept the provisions of the deed of composition. The evidence does not show whether he was a creditor or not, except as payee and indorser of this note.
It is contended that by assenting to the release of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Aven v. Ellis, 30382.
...This issue was properly submitted to the jury in defendant's instructions, numbers 5 and 6. Sec. 2748, R.S. 1929; Eggermann v. Henschen, 56 Mo. 123; Broadway Savings Bank v. Schumucker, 7 Mo. App. 171; Phenix Natl. Bank v. Hanlan, 183 Mo. App. 243, 166 S.W. 830; Meredith v. Pemberton, 170 M......
-
Aven v. Ellis
......This issue was properly submitted to. the jury in defendant's instructions, numbers 5 and 6. Sec. 2748, R. S. 1929; Eggermann v. Henschen, 56 Mo. 123; Broadway Savings Bank v. Schumucker, 7 Mo.App. 171; Phenix Natl. Bank v. Hanlan, 183 Mo.App. 243,. 166 S.W. 830; Meredith v. ......
-
Macfarland v. Heim
...was released, then the defendant, Heim, was certainly released, he being merely a guarantor for Lau. Prior v. Kiso, 81 Mo. 248; Eggemann v. Henschen, 56 Mo. 123; Bank Schmucker, 7 Mo.App. 171; Bank v. Gerke, 68 Md. 449; s. c., 6 Am. St. Rep. 453, with extended note; Farrar v. Kramer, 5 Mo.A......
- Hurt v. Cook