Smith v. Schibel
| Citation | 19 Mo. 140 |
| Parties | SMITH, Defendant in Error, v. SCHIBEL, Plaintiff in Error. |
| Decision Date | 31 October 1853 |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
1. Walker v. Mauro, 18 Mo. 564, affirmed.
Error to St. Louis Law Commissioner's Court.
The petition of Smith, the plaintiff below, stated that Schibel, the defendant, was indebted to Charles Luciane on account of borrowed money, and that Luciane assigned his claim to Selar Simons, who assigned the same to the plaintiff. The plaintiff prayed judgment. A demurrer to this petition being overruled, the defendant sued out a writ of error
H. N. Hart, for plaintiff in error.
Blennerhasset & Shreve, for defendant in error.
In the case of Walker v. Mauro, decided at this term, it was held that, under our code, which blends law and equity, the assignee of a debt may maintain an action in his own name. This case appears to come within the same principle. The defendant demurred to the petition, and the demurrer was overruled. No other point appears to be presented than the question, whether a debt or account may be assigned, and whether the assignee may sue in his own name, under the code. The judgment is, with the concurrence of the other judges, affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Julian v. Abbott
...are the only proper plaintiffs in a suit. Webb v. Morgan, 14 Mo. 428; Walker v. Mauro, 18 Mo. 564; Smith v. Kennett, 18 Mo. 154; Smith v. Schibel, 19 Mo. 140; Waterman v. Frank, 21 Mo. 108; Thornton v. Crowther, 24 Mo. 164; Hutchings v. Blackford, 35 Mo. 285. After the death of Lindenbower ......
-
Baker v. Stonebraker
...under our practice for the assignee to sue thereon in his own name. (R. C. 1855, p. 1217, § 1; Walker v. Mauro, 18 Mo. 564; Smith v. Scheibel, 19 Mo. 140; Van Doren v. Relfe, 20 Mo. 455; Burson v. Blair, 12 Ind. 371, 373.) II. The entry in the record of defendant's appearance by attorney is......
-
Long v. Heinrich
...Mauro, 18 Mo. 564.) This case was decided in October, 1853, long before we had any statutory provisions on this subject. (See also Smith v. Schibel, 19 Mo. 140; Smith v. Kennett, 18 Mo. 154; Smith v. Best, 42 Mo. 185; Bank of Commerce v. Bogy, 44 Mo. 13; Hutchings, to use, etc., v. Blackfor......
-
Thornton v. Crowther
...of our practice act, and, therefore, entitled to sue. (See Code of Practice, 1849, Art. 3, Sec. 1; Walker v. Mauro, 18 Mo. 564; Smith v. Schibel, 19 Mo. 140; Long v. Constant, id. 320; Smith v. Dean, id. 63.) LEONARD, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court. There is no error in this reco......