Gullett v. Hoy & Orton

15 Mo. 399
CourtSupreme Court of Missouri
DecidedJanuary 15, 1852
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 15 Mo. 399 (Gullett v. Hoy & Orton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Gullett v. Hoy & Orton, 15 Mo. 399 (Mo. 1852).

Opinion

Gamble, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

(gullett, as the endorser of ft negotiable promissory note, sued Hey & Orton, the makers. The endorsement to ^Gullett w$s tnadNby jEe payee after the maturity of the note. The defendants, in theft rely upon an off-set due to them from the payee of the note before his endorsement of it to Gullett. The plaintiff demurred to the answer [400]*400claiming the set-off, and the circuit court overruled the demurrer. As the off-set claimed exceeded the amount of the note, judgment was rendered for the defendants.

The note in this case being negotiable, the statute which fixes the rights and liabilities of parties to bonds and ordinary notes when assigned, does not apply, but we must look to the general law applicable to bills of exchange, as by statute this note ‘‘has the same effect and is negotiable in like manner as an inland hill of exchange."

This note being endorsed after it became due, the endorser took it subject to all the equities attached to it in the hands of the payee. These equities are such as are connected with the note itself, and not such as grow out of distinct and independent transactions between the original parties. A set-off that might have been asserted against the payee cannot be set up against the endorsee, although the note was transferred after it became due: Burroughs vs. Moss, 10 Barn & Cress., 558; 10 Mees & Wels. 696; 2 Penn. State R., 103; Story on Bills, § 220.

The demurrer to the set-off should have been sustained, and judgment should have been rendered for the plaintiff for the amount of the note and interest, as the set-off was the only defence made in the answer. The judgment is therefore, with the concurrence of the other judges, reversed and the cause remanded that it may be proceeded; with in accordance with this opinion.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Dowling v. Grand Avenue Bank
267 S.W. 1 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1924)
Booher v. Allen
55 S.W. 238 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1900)
Gemmell v. Hueben
71 Mo. App. 291 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1897)
Knaus v. Givens
19 S.W. 535 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1892)
Hyde v. Hazel
43 Mo. App. 668 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1891)
Barnes v. McMullins
78 Mo. 260 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1883)
Cutler v. Cook
77 Mo. 388 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1883)
Leavitt v. Peabody
62 N.H. 185 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1882)
Grier v. Hinman
9 Mo. App. 213 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1880)
Haeussler v. Greene
8 Mo. App. 451 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1880)
Davis v. Neligh
7 Neb. 78 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1878)
Arnot v. Woodburn
35 Mo. 99 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1864)
Mattoon v. McDaniel
34 Mo. 138 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1863)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
15 Mo. 399, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gullett-v-hoy-orton-mo-1852.