McDaniel v. Wood
| Decision Date | 31 August 1842 |
| Citation | 7 Mo. 543 |
| Parties | MCDANIEL & OUSLY v. WOOD & OLIVER. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MONROE COUNTY.
GLOVER, for Plaintiffs.
The plaintiffs below, Wood and Oliver, sued the defendants upon a note, executed by them to Pickett and Hawkins, for $1,656 05, and assigned by indorsement to the plaintiffs. From the bill of exceptions, it seems that George G. Hawkins and John C. Pickett composed the firm of Pickett & Hawkins; that the note sued on was given by McDaniel & Ously to Pickett & Hawkins in consideration of a stock of goods sold by them to McDaniel & Ously; that Pickett & Hawkins indorsed said note in blank, and delivered it to Shropshire & Ously, in payment of debt: that Shropshire, after the dissolution of the firm of Shropshire & Ously, delivered the said note to Th. L. Anderson, and directed him to collect the same, and apply it to the debts against Shropshire & Ously; that Ously was not present when this was done, and never assented to it, but on the contrary, informed Anderson, that he denied the power of Shropshire to dispose of the note. Anderson knew, when he received the note, that the firm of Shropshire & Ously had been dissolved: but with no other authority than what has been stated above, he filled up the blank indorsement to Wood & Oliver, the plaintiffs who were creditors of the said firm of Shropshire & Ously. The Circuit Court held, that on this state of facts, the plaintiffs could recover, and a verdict, under the instructions of the court, was accordingly found by the jury, and judgment went for plaintiffs.
The doctrine is well settled, that after the dissolution of a partnership, one partner cannot draw, accept, or indorse bills, so as to bind his co-partner. Chitty on Bills, 61.(a) In this case, the indorsement was made by an agent of J. P. Shropshire, upon authority derived from him only, and was therefore only binding on him. The agent, at the time he filled up the blank indorsement, by the authority of Shropshire, was aware of the dissolution of the partnership, and of the entire absence of any authority from Ously.
A transfer of a bill or note, payable to order, can only be made by the person who is legally interested, and if the person to whom it is assigned, when he took the paper, knew that the person making the transfer had no right to make it, such transfer is in-operative. Chitty on Bills, 221.
This court is therefore of opinion that the instructions of the Circuit Court were...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Friedman v. M. Engel & Co.
...the co-partner. Brady's Admr. v. Hill & Keese, 1 Mo. 315; Patterson v. Camden, 25 Mo. 23; Donzelot v. Rawlings, 58 Mo. 77; McDaniel v. Wook & Oliver, 7 Mo. 543. (3) can a partner execute a note in the name of the firm after the dissolution of the firm, even in renewal of a note of the firm,......
-
McClain v. Weidemeyer
...it. (Story on Prom. Notes, §124; Story on Bills, §92; 19 Mo. 300.) The legal owner, who was the husband, could alone transfer it. (7 Mo. 543.) Mrs. Thompson could only transfer the note as the agent, or by the authority and consent of her husband, and this is neither averred in the petition......
-
St. Louis Nat'l Bank v. Ross
...that one offering to pledge a warehouse receipt is a factor, is not an innocent purchaser.-- Buckner v. Jones, 1 Mo. App. 538; McDaniel v. Wood, 7 Mo. 543; Benoist v. Siter, 9 Mo. 657; Renshaw v. Wills, 38 Mo. 201; Mechanics' Bank v. Schaumburg, 38 Mo. 228. BAKEWELL, J., delivered the opini......
-
Chappell v. Allen
...because even if the firm were dissolved, and the respondent was ignorant of it, the title would pass--Levy v. Story, 10 Mo. 636; McDaniel v. Wood, 7 Mo. 543. WAGNER, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court. It will be unnecessary to give a summary of all the facts in this case, or to noti......