Nicolay v. Fritschle

40 Mo. 67
Supreme Court of Missouri·Decided March 15, 1867·Published·Cited by 9 cases

Opinion

Wagner, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court. •

This was an action brought on two promissory notes made by the appellant in favor of the respondent. An answer was filed, alleging that the respondent was not the real owner of the notes ; that although they were made and executed to him, they were given for a debt not due to him, but to on£ Busemoyer. On motion, the court rendered judgment in favor of the respondent, notwithstanding the answer, treating it as no defence to the action. The contract here made — the giving the notes — was with the respondent personally, and we do not think there can be any question about his right to maintain an action on them in his own name. If he took them in such a manner as to impress him- with a trust, the beneficiaries may at any time institute proper proceedings for the assertion of their rights. But the respondent had the possession of the notes and the legal title ; he, therefore, had such an interest as authorized him to sue.

Let the judgment be affirmed.

The other judges concur.

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

Nicolay v. Fritschle, 40 Mo. 67 (Mo. 1867).

40 Mo. 67 (Nicolay v. Fritschle) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Memmel v. Thomas
181 S.W.2d 168 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1944)
Missouri Wesleyan College v. Shulte
142 S.W.2d 644 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1940)
Gamel v. Hynds
1912 OK 254 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1912)
McGuffin v. Coyle and Guss
1906 OK 6 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1906)
Simons v. Wittmann
88 S.W. 791 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1905)
Berry and Berry v. Barton
1902 OK 67 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1902)
Wolf v. Sun Insurance
75 Mo. App. 306 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1898)
Snider v. Adams Express Co.
77 Mo. 523 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1883)
Block v. Dorman
51 Mo. 31 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1872)