Taney County Bank v. Bray

Missouri Court of Appeals

Taney County Bank v. Bray

125 S.W. 235, 141 Mo. App. 692, 1910 Mo. App. LEXIS 137

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 7, 1910

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 125 S.W. 235 (Taney County Bank v. Bray) 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

Taney County Bank v. Bray, 125 S.W. 235, 141 Mo. App. 692, 1910 Mo. App. LEXIS 137 (Mo. Ct. App. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

GBAY, J.

This is a suit by plaintiff against defendants on a promissory note executed on the 15th day of August, 1901, The makers of the note were the defendants, J. P. Bray .and J. G. Lewis, and the note was payable to the appellant. The note came due seventeen months from date, and on or about the 9th day of January, 1904, the appellant endorsed said note in writing across the back thereof, as follows, to-wit: “For value received I hereby guarantee payment of the within note, and waive demand and notice of protest on same when due. J. A. Sherrodd.” By this endorsement, the appellant transferred the note to the respondent.

This suit was commenced in the circuit court of Taney county. The defendants, Bray and Lewis, filed a separate answer. The appellant filed a demurrer ‘to the petition, alleging the following: “Because the defendant, J. A. Sherrodd, is not a necessary party to the complete termination of the action. Because two separate and distinct causes of action have been improperly united in the same court in the petition. Because there is a misjoinder of parties defendants.”

The demurrer was overruled, and in due time the appellant perfected his appeal to this court. The record docs not show that any judgment was rendered against the appellant, except the judgment of the court overruling his demurrer. Waiving the question of the failure to show any judgment rendered on the plain» [694]*694tiff’s cause of action, the only point urged by appellant for reversal of the judgment, is that the contract of tbe guarantor being independent of that of the principal, he cannot be jointly sued in the same action with the principal. It may he true that as a general proposition, appellant’s position is correct. But in this State and by virtue of our statute, where the payee has endorsed a note and guaranteed the payment of it, the holder of the note may sue the maker and the payee jointly. [Maddox v. Duncan, 143 Mo. 613, 45 S. W. 688; Hill v. Combs, 92 Mo. App. 242; Hill v. Coombs, 93 Mo. App. 264.]

The court committed no error in overruling the demurrer and the judgment appealed from will be affirmed.

All concur.

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

GBAY, J.

This is a suit by plaintiff against defendants on a promissory note executed on the 15th day of August, 1901, The makers of the note were the defendants, J. P. Bray .and J. G. Lewis, and the note was payable to the appellant. The note came due seventeen months from date, and on or about the 9th day of January, 1904, the appellant endorsed said note in writing across the back thereof, as follows, to-wit: “For value received I hereby guarantee payment of the within note, and waive demand and notice of protest on same when due. J. A. Sherrodd.” By this endorsement, the appellant transferred the note to the respondent.

This suit was commenced in the circuit court of Taney county. The defendants, Bray and Lewis, filed a separate answer. The appellant filed a demurrer ‘to the petition, alleging the following: “Because the defendant, J. A. Sherrodd, is not a necessary party to the complete termination of the action. Because two separate and distinct causes of action have been improperly united in the same court in the petition. Because there is a misjoinder of parties defendants.”

The demurrer was overruled, and in due time the appellant perfected his appeal to this court. The record docs not show that any judgment was rendered against the appellant, except the judgment of the court overruling his demurrer. Waiving the question of the failure to show any judgment rendered on the plain» [694]*694tiff’s cause of action, the only point urged by appellant for reversal of the judgment, is that the contract of tbe guarantor being independent of that of the principal, he cannot be jointly sued in the same action with the principal. It may he true that as a general proposition, appellant’s position is correct. But in this State and by virtue of our statute, where the payee has endorsed a note and guaranteed the payment of it, the holder of the note may sue the maker and the payee jointly. [Maddox v. Duncan, 143 Mo. 613, 45 S. W. 688; Hill v. Combs, 92 Mo. App. 242; Hill v. Coombs, 93 Mo. App. 264.]

The court committed no error in overruling the demurrer and the judgment appealed from will be affirmed.

All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

125 S.W. 235, 141 Mo. App. 692, 1910 Mo. App. LEXIS 137, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/taney-county-bank-v-bray-moctapp-1910.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack