Turk v. Stahl

Decision Date31 October 1873
Citation53 Mo. 437
PartiesHELEN TURK, Appellant, v. SAMUEL STAHL, Respondent.
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

Appeal from Madison Circuit Court.

Fox and Duchouquette with Math. J. Clardy, for Appellant.

I. All promissory notes are payable at the time indicated therein, absolutely and without days of grace. (W. S., 216, § 15.) Section 18, W. S., 217, merely adopts a different mode of expression.

B. B. Cahoon, for Respondent.

I. The note sued on, being for the payment of money to the payee therein named, or order, and expressed to be for value received, was negotiable, and in this State has the same effect as an inland bill of exchange, under the law merchant. (W. S., 216, § 15: Kel. Mo. Trea., 322-3.)

II. Inland bills of exchange, and negotiable promissory notes, are entitled, and subject, to three days of grace. (Brown vs. Harraden, 4 T. R., 148; 1 Pearson Notes and Bills, 393 and note; Bank of Washington vs. Triplett, 1 Pet., 25; Wood vs. Corl, 4 Metc., 203; Redf. and Big., Lead. Cas. Bills and Notes, 308; Story on Bills of Exchange, §§ 332-346; Ivory vs. Bank of Missouri, 36 Mo., 475; Lucas vs. Ladew, 28 Mo., 342; Kuntz vs. Temple, 48 Mo., 71.)

III. All contracts are made with reference to existing laws, and the three days of grace, though not generally expressed on the face of negotiable notes, or inland bills of exchange, enter into the contract of their making as much as though they were expressly agreed in the notes or bills to be given. (Ogden vs. Saunders, 12 Wheat., 213; Gracie vs. Marine Ins. Co., 8 Cranch., 75; Mills vs. Bank of U. S., 11 Wheat., 431; Bank of Washington vs. Triplett, 1 Pet., 25.)

IV. A demand made before the third day of grace is a mere nullity, and the same as if made before the instrument was due. (Ivory vs. Bank of Missouri, 36 Mo., 475.)

V. The suit was prematurely brought, and the plaintiff cannot recover in this action. (Estis vs. Tower, 102 Mass., 65; Gordon vs. Parmelee, 15 Gray, 413.)

VI. Sections 15, 18 and 19, Chap. 18, (W. S.,) are transcripts from the English Statute, and the words,--“shall be due and payable as therein expressed” &c.,--have always been construed to mean only, that no other proof of the date or consideration of the instrument, than that expressed on their face, shall primarily be necessary to make out a prima facie case, in the actions upon negotiable notes or inland bills of exchange. (W. S., 270, § 6.)

SHERWOOD, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

This was a suit originally instituted before a justice of the peace by Helen Turk against Samuel Stahl, on an instrumen of writing in these words:

$100.00.

Sept. 1st, 1871.

Ten days after date, I promise to pay Joseph Turk, or or der, the sum of one hundred dollars, for value received.

SAMUEL STAHL.

The plaintiff, to whom the note had been transferred, instituted suit on the same on the 13th day of September, obtained service on the defendant on the same day, and subsequently recovered judgment for the sum specified in the note, and interest.

From this judgment the defendant appealed to the Circuit Court, which held, that as the note was entitled to three days grace, therefore that the action was prematurely brought, and gave a declaration of law to that effect. Thereupon the plaintiff took a non-suit, with leave, &c.,--and now insists, that because § 15 of that chapter of our statute, respecting Bills of Exchange, provides, that “Every promissory note for the payment of money to the payee therein named, or order, or bearer, and expressed to be for value received, shall be due and payable as therein expressed,” that it must necessarily follow, that such notes fall due on the day mentioned...

To continue reading

Request your trial
20 cases
  • Young v. Pennsylvania Fire Insurance Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • July 3, 1916
    ...... because the obligation has not accrued is laid down in these. cases: Heard v. Ritchey, 112 Mo. 516; Turk v. Stahl, 53 Mo. 437; Mason v. Bernard, 37 Mo. 385-391; Bush Cons. Co. v. Withnell, 190 Mo.App. 44;. Lawler v. Vette, 166 Mo.App. 352; ......
  • Butler v. Gambs
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • March 21, 1876
    ...Schmaelter, 45 Mo. 502; Vane v. Richardson, 36 Mo. 130; Cook v. Renick, 19 Ill. 598; Ivory v. Bank of Missouri, 36 Mo. 475; Turk v. Stahl, 53 Mo. 437; Deitz v. Corwin, 35 Mo. 376; Merchants' Bank v. Easley, 44 Mo. 186; Stagg v. Linnerfelser, 59 Mo. 336; Tenny v. Prince, 4 Pick. (Mass.) 385;......
  • Dodd, Brown & Co. v. Wilson
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Kansas
    • May 23, 1887
    ...385. IV. But the note was negotiable, and the three days of grace had not expired, and the note was not due when suit was brought. Turk v. Stahl, 53 Mo. 437; McCoy v. Farmer, 65 Mo. 244. (1) " exchange on St. Louis, " does not and cannot destroy its negotiability. 1 Daniel on Neg. Inst. [2 ......
  • Butler v. Gambs
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • March 21, 1876
    ...v. Schmaelter, 45 Mo. 502; Vane v. Richardson, 36 Mo. 130; Cook v. Renick, 19 Ill. 598; Ivory v. Bank of Missouri, 36 Mo. 475; Turk v. Stahl, 53 Mo. 437; Deitz v. Corwin, 35 Mo. 376; Merchants' Bank v. Easley, 44 Mo. 186; Stagg v. Linnerfelser, 59 Mo. 336; Tenny v. Prince, 4 Pick. (Mass.) 3......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT