Finney v. Shirley

Citation7 Mo. 42
PartiesJ. & W. FINNEY v. SHIRLEY & HOFFMAN.
Decision Date31 May 1841
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Missouri

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ST. LOUIS COUNTY.

NAPTON, J.

This was an action brought before a justice of the peace, o St. Louis, upon the following instrument: “Due Shirley and Hoffman the sum of one hundred and forty-two dollars, -- cents, the amount of two meat bills, rendered. $142. Portland, Nov. 3, 1838. Thomas F. Coburn, Clk. for steamboat Bee and owners.” Judgment was given for the plaintiffs, and defendant appealed to the Circuit Court, and judgment having been again for plaintiffs, a motion for a new trial was made, and overruled, and the case brought here by appeal. The only question appears to be on the jurisdiction of the justice. If the obligation above cited be a note, the justice had jurisdiction: if not, the case was improperly entertained in the Circuit Court. An acknowledgment of indebtedness, in a specific sum, for a valuable consideration, raises a promise to pay. The instrument here sued on was therefore a note within the meaning of our act. The cases cited contain instruments precisely like the present, in which the courts have held them to be notes. 10 Wend. 677; 2 Cowen, 536. The judgment of the Circuit Court is, therefore, affirmed.

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Kessler v. Clayes
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • February 1, 1910
    ...of counsel. (1) (a) The instrument sued on is a promissory note, with actual consideration stated. McGowen v. West, 7 Mo. 569; Finney v. Shirley, 7 Mo. 42; Brady Chandler, 31 Mo. 28; Brainard v. Capelle, 31 Mo. 428; Jacquin v. Warren, 40 Ill. 459; Franklin v. March, 6 N.H. 364; Locher v. Ku......
  • Kessler v. Clayes
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • February 1, 1910
    ...indebtedness acknowledged to be due is expressed in words therein. See the following: McGowen v. West, 7 Mo. 569, 38 Am. Dec. 468; Finney v. Shirley, 7 Mo. 42; Brady v. Chandler, 31 Mo. 28; Jacquin v. Warren, 40 Ill. 459; Locher v. Kuechenmiester, 120 Mo. App. 701, 98 S. W. 92. And so a pap......
  • Lehner v. Roth
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • February 8, 1921
    ...to the first, second and third counts of plaintiff's amended petition. (2) The instrument sued on is a promissory note. Finney v. Shirley & Hoffman, 7 Mo. 42; v. West, 7 Mo. 569; Ubsdell & Peirson v. Cunningham, 22 Mo. 124; Brady et al. v. Chandler, 31 Mo. 28; Locher v. Kuechenmiester, 120 ......
  • Locher v. Kuechenmiester
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • November 27, 1906
    ... ...          (1) The ... instrument sued on is a note, and section 894 does not affect ... the question here involved. Finney v. Shirley, 7 Mo ... 42; McGowen v. West, 7 Mo. 569; Prather v ... McEvoy, 8 Mo. 661; Ubsdell v. Cunningham, 22 ... Mo. 124; Brady v ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT