Monett State Bank v. Eubanks

101 S.W. 687, 124 Mo. App. 499, 1907 Mo. App. LEXIS 247
Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided April 16, 1907·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

BLAND, P. J.

(after stating the facts). — An indorsee of an underdue negotiable promissory note, taken as collateral security for a loan made at the time, is a holder for value and is not affected by any equities between the makers and the payee, of which he had no notice. [Logan v. Smith, 62 Mo. 455; Deere v. Marsden, 88 Mo. 512; Merchants’ Nat. Bank v. Abernathy, 32 Mo. App. 211.] And if the collateral note is secured by a mortgage, the latter passes to the indorsee as an incident to the note. [Hagerman v. Sutton, 91 Mo. 519, 4 S. W. 73; The Boatmen’s Saving Bank v. Grewe, 84 Mo. 477; Johnson v. Johnson, 81 Mo. 331.] Neither in what was stricken out, nor what remained in the answer is it stated that either bank had any notice of any infirmities in the note sued on, or of the original note of which it is a renewal, therefore, there is no legal defense stated in the answer, and the peremptory instruction to find for plhintiff was the only one that should have been given under the pleadings and the evidence.

The judgment is affirmed.

All concur.

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

Monett State Bank v. Eubanks, 101 S.W. 687, 124 Mo. App. 499, 1907 Mo. App. LEXIS 247 (Mo. Ct. App. 1907).

101 S.W. 687 (Monett State Bank v. Eubanks) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Eggimann v. Houck
255 S.W. 951 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1923)