Lindell v. Lee
This text of 34 Mo. 103 (Lindell v. Lee) 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.
Opinion
delivered the opinion of the court.
The mortgage was collateral to the note, and the plaintiff could not have a judgment for the foreclosure of the mortgage if she could not have recovered upon the note.
The plaintiff’s testator having been a member of the firm which gave the note, she, by purchasing the note, which she was equally bound with the other members of the firm to pay, acquired a demand for so much money as she had expended for the use of the firm, which would be allowed her upon a settlement of the partnership. There is no averment or evidence of a settlement of the partnership accounts, or that this is the only unliquidated item. She cannot recover on the note. (McKnight v. McCutchen, 27 Mo. 436, and other cases.)
Judgment confirmed;
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
34 Mo. 103, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lindell-v-lee-mo-1863.