Hardesty v. Newby
| Decision Date | 31 July 1859 |
| Citation | 28 Mo. 567 |
| Parties | HARDESTY, Respondent, v. NEWBY, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
1. Where a mature negotiable promissory note is delivered by the payee without endorsement to an agent for collection, the possession of the note by the latter will not raise a presumption that he has authority to assign the same; the burden of proving an assignment by authority of the payee rests upon the party claiming under such alleged assignment.
Appeal from Weston Court of Common Pleas.
This was an action on a negotiable promissory note for two hundred and twenty-eight dollars, dated March 10, 1858, and payable one day after date. The note was drawn payable to the order of A. W. Mason. The plaintiff in his petition alleged that said Mason, by his duly authorized agent, had assigned said note to plaintiff. The defendant admitted the execution of the note by himself, but denied the assignment, and alleged that Mason had notified him not to pay the note to plaintiff. It appeared that Mason had delivered the note, some time after maturity, to one Love for collection; that Love had no express authority to assign or transfer said note; that Love assigned said note to plaintiff by writing on the back thereof as follows: “A. W. Mason, by W. R. Love.” The court, at the instance of the plaintiff, gave the following declarations of law: Declarations of law asked by defendant were refused by the court. The court found for plaintiff.
J. N. & C. F. Burnes, for appellant.
I. The declarations of Love were inadmissible to prove the fact of agency. An agent authorized to collect is not authorized to sell and endorse. The onus was on plaintiff to prove the assignment. (10 Mo. 33.) The note was assigned or attempted to be assigned by Love after maturity. The law does not presume that the plaintiff acquired it in due course of business. The law does not presume that the endorsement was made by a person legally entitled to endorse and transfer. (7 Mo. 544; 9 Mo. 657; 9 Mo. 758.)
Doniphan & Lawson, for respondent.
I. The possession of the note by Love, the same being negotiable, was sufficient to authorize him to transfer the same to an innocent purchaser for value. (Bay v. Coddington, 5 Johns. Ch. 52.) Mason recognized and ratified the act of Love.NAPTON, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.
This was a suit upon a negotiable note, purchased by the plaintiff from one Love, who professed to be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wade v. Boone
...that J. E. Parrish was the agent of Ruth C. O'Connor with power and authority as such to assign the note in suit to respondents. Hardesty v. Newby, 28 Mo. 567; Paper Mfg. Co. v. Bank, 199 Ill. 151; Jackson Bank, 92 Tenn. 154; Goodfellow v. Landis, 36 Mo. 168; Quigley v. Bank, 80 Mo. 289; Sm......
-
Wade v. Boone
...386, 142 S. W. 730; Bank v. Hohn, supra; Quigley v. Bank, 80 Mo. 289, 50 Am. Rep. 503; Goodfellow v. Landis, 36 Mo. 168; Hardesty v. Newby, 28 Mo. 567, 75 Am. Dec. 137; 31 Cyc. 1643. It may be that Parrish, who was president of the bank at which the note was made payable, had authority to c......
-
Jackson Paper Mfg. Co. v. Commercial Nat. Bank
...to indorse appellant's name upon the check, and thereforethe burden was upon the appellee to prove such authority. In Hardesty v. Newby, 28 Mo. 567, 75 Am. Dec. 137, it was held that, where a matured negotiable promissory note is delivered by the payee, without indorsement, to an agent for ......
-
Arnot v. Woodburn
...Osborne, Camp & Co. to them, and as Bacon delivered the note to them, to prove his agency or authority from Osborne, Camp & Co. (Hardesty v. Newby, 28 Mo. 567.) II. The payment of the $500 note by the plaintiffs was gratuitous. The declaration of Anderson Arnot, the witness, that the note w......