Patton v. Clark

Sixth Circuit

Patton v. Clark

99 F. 1005, 40 C.C.A. 686, 1899 U.S. App. LEXIS 2800

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedDecember 4, 1899

DocketNo. 718

StatusPublished

This text of 99 F. 1005 (Patton v. Clark) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Patton v. Clark, 99 F. 1005, 40 C.C.A. 686, 1899 U.S. App. LEXIS 2800 (6th Cir. 1899).

Pincite

Opinion

LURTON, Circuit Judge.

This was a Bill filed by the trustee to enforce a mortgage on realty in Tennessee, made to secure a note executed to the JarvisConklin Mortgage Trust Company, a foreign corporation, which had not complied with the Tennessee statute prohibiting foreign corporations from doing business within the state before registering their charters. The note purported to be made at Kansas City, Mo., the place of the principal office of the Jarvis-Conklin Mortgage Trust Company, which was a corporation of the state of Missouri, and was payable at Kansas City. This note was indorsed without recourse, before maturity, for value, and without notice of any infirmities, to the complainant below, John W. Clark. The defenses are substantially those presented by the ease of Hamilton v. Fowler (C. C. A.) 99 Fed. 18, and was submitted upon the argument made in that case. The case is governed by the opinion in that ease this day filed, and is, upon the authority of that decision, affirmed, with costs.

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

LURTON, Circuit Judge.

This was a Bill filed by the trustee to enforce a mortgage on realty in Tennessee, made to secure a note executed to the JarvisConklin Mortgage Trust Company, a foreign corporation, which had not complied with the Tennessee statute prohibiting foreign corporations from doing business within the state before registering their charters. The note purported to be made at Kansas City, Mo., the place of the principal office of the Jarvis-Conklin Mortgage Trust Company, which was a corporation of the state of Missouri, and was payable at Kansas City. This note was indorsed without recourse, before maturity, for value, and without notice of any infirmities, to the complainant below, John W. Clark. The defenses are substantially those presented by the ease of Hamilton v. Fowler (C. C. A.) 99 Fed. 18, and was submitted upon the argument made in that case. The case is governed by the opinion in that ease this day filed, and is, upon the authority of that decision, affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

99 F. 1005, 40 C.C.A. 686, 1899 U.S. App. LEXIS 2800, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/patton-v-clark-ca6-1899.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack