Monett State Bank v. Eubanks

101 S.W. 687, 124 Mo. App. 499, 1907 Mo. App. LEXIS 247
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals
DecidedApril 16, 1907
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 101 S.W. 687 (Monett State Bank v. Eubanks) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

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

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

Related

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
101 S.W. 687, 124 Mo. App. 499, 1907 Mo. App. LEXIS 247, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/monett-state-bank-v-eubanks-moctapp-1907.