Perry v. Musser
Decision Date | 31 October 1878 |
Citation | 68 Mo. 477 |
Parties | PERRY v. MUSSER, Appellant. |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Livingston Circuit Court.--HON. E. J. BROADDUS, Judge.
Shanklin, Low & McDougal for appellant.
Crosby Johnson for respondent.
The substance of this petition, is that on the 15th day of November, 1866, plaintiff and defendant entered into a co-partnership for the purpose of dealing in hogs; that as such partners, on the 21st day of December, 1866, they sold a lot of hogs to one Hersey for $2,362.50, for which Hersey executed two notes for $1,181.25 each, payable one in six, and the other in twelve months from that date with interest; that on the 8th day of January, 1867, they made a final settlement, and accounting as copartners, and dissolved their co-partnership, which said settlement and accounting was reduced to writing; that by the terms of said written agreement the defendant was to take said notes, which should be his property on condition that they were paid when due, and if defendant collected the two notes he was to pay to plaintiff $560 with interest; that defendant, as soon as said notes became due, should proceed with due diligence to collect the money, and if not collected when due, the notes were to be the property of plaintiff and defendant, who were to equally bear any loss upon them; that said notes were transferred and delivered to defendant, that one of them was paid at maturity; that defendant did not use due diligence in presenting the other note when it became due; that defendant afterwards instituted suit upon it in the State of Kansas, and in 1869 obtained a judgment thereon, and in 1870, without the knowledge or consent of plaintiff, released said judgment, took other notes from Hersey payable to himself for the amount, and a mortgage on land to secure the same; that Hersey has since paid a portion of said debt, but how much, plaintiff is not advised; that by reason of defendant's failure to use diligence to collect said notes, and of his conversion of the same to his own use and releasing said judgment, he became liable to pay to plaintiff said sum of $560.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Newman v. Mercantile Trust Company
... ... Mo. 79. (2) The second count of plaintiff's petition ... states a cause of action at common law and is well ... established in Missouri. Perry v. Musser, 68 Mo ... 477; Watriss v. Piera, 36 N.H. 239; Chitty on ... Pleadings (16 Am. Ed.), 248; Bank v. Tiger Tail Co., ... 152 Mo. 157; ... ...
-
Alexander v. Relfe
...Company or the $900,000 draft to its own use; hence the motion in arrest of judgment should have been sustained for that reason. Perry v. Musser, 68 Mo. 477. The mere fact of the directors being the same in both corporations did not render the retirement of the stock and surrender of the dr......
-
Neiswanger v. Squier
...of the building, and they do not allege that defendant unlawfully converted the same. Waring v. P. R. R. Co.,76 Pa. St. 491; Perry v. Musser, 68 Mo. 477; Jones v. Hotchkiss, 61 Me. 482. 4. As to the measure of damages. Certainly the value would be greater to the one who was not compelled to......
- Exch. Nat'l Bank v. Allen