Light v. Kingsbury
| Decision Date | 31 July 1872 |
| Citation | 50 Mo. 331 |
| Parties | EVANDER LIGHT, Plaintiff in Error, v. EZRA W. KINGSBURY et al., Defendants in Error. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Error to Kansas City Court of Common Pleas.
S. P. Twiss and Gage & Ladd, for plaintiff in error.
M. D. Trefren, for defendants in error.
The plaintiff sued the defendant Kingsbury as maker, and the other defendants, John Brooks, John G. Thompson and Aaron Raub as indorsers, of the following negotiable note:
“$3,500.00. One day after date, for value received, I promise to pay to the order of Brooks, Thompson & Co. three thousand five hundred dollars, with interest at the rate of ten per cent. per annum until paid.
E. W. KINGSBURY.
Kansas City, January 7, 1869.”
The petition alleged that the payees, Brooks, Thompson & Co., composed of John Brooks, John G. Thompson and Aaron Raub, on or about the 19th day of April, 1869, for valuable consideration, indorsed and delivered said note to the plaintiff; that the plaintiff, on the 3d day of July, 1869, demanded of said Ezra W. Kingsbury the amount due by said note, who refused to pay the same; and that plaintiff, on said 3d day of July, 1869, duly notified the defendants, Brooks, Thompson & Co., of said demand upon said Kingsbury for payment of said note and of his refusal to pay the same.
The defendant Kingsbury filed no answer. The answer of the other defendants denies due presentment and notice, and denies that any indorsement in fact was made; that the indorsement was simply in blank, and made as a receipt; that the defendant Kingsbury paid the note to them and requested that they should indorse their names in blank, as and for a receipt of payment, which they did.
The case was submitted to a jury, and they found a verdict for the defendants. The evidence was conflicting, and tended to establish the views of both parties. Various instructions were asked, and some were given and some refused. But the law, as presented by the issues, seems to have been fairly laid down by the instructions that were given.
But it is unnecessary to review any of the positions assumed by counsel in this case, as the petition on its face does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against the defendants as indorsers of this note. It is a negotiable note, indorsed after due. Such indorsement is equivalent to drawing a new bill at sight, and the same diligence in making demand and giving notice is required to charge the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McAdam v. Grand Forks Mercantile Company, a Corporation
...v. Redfield, 13 Kan. 550; Lank v. Morrison, 44 Kan. 594, 24 P. 1106; Broun v. Hull, 33 Gratt. 29; Brown v. Davies, 3 T. R. 80; Light v. Kingsbury, 50 Mo. 331; Maddox Duncan, 143 Mo. 613, 41 L.R.A. 581, 65 Am. St. Rep. 678, 45 S.W. 688. Where a party indorses a bill or note after maturity, h......
-
Kelly v. Staed
...it is equivalent to drawing a new bill at sight. 2 Daniel on Negotiable Instruments [4 Ed.], secs. 1238-1242. Thus it is said in Light v. Kingsbury, 50 Mo. 331: "Such indorsement [after maturity] is equivalent drawing a new bill at sight, and the same diligence in making demand and giving n......
-
Franklin Bank v. St. Louis Car Co.
...far as defendant is concerned in plaintiff's hands as against the Woodwork Company on that company's indorsement after maturity. Light v. Kingsbury, 50 Mo. 331. (f) If the Franklin Bank does not have title to the note that is a defense. Furthermore, defendant claims it does not owe the note......
-
Franklin Bank v. St. Louis Car Co.
...far as defendant is concerned in plaintiff's hands as against the Woodwork Company on that company's indorsement after maturity. Light v. Kingsbury, 50 Mo. 331. (f) If the Bank does not have title to the note that is a defense. Furthermore, defendant claims it does not owe the note. (4) Thi......