Ubsdell v. Cunningham

22 Mo. 124
CourtSupreme Court of Missouri
DecidedOctober 15, 1855
StatusPublished
Cited by21 cases

This text of 22 Mo. 124 (Ubsdell v. Cunningham) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Ubsdell v. Cunningham, 22 Mo. 124 (Mo. 1855).

Opinion

Leonard, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The only question that can be made here is, whether the obligation incurred by these note? is suspended upon the condition that the accounts referred to should be collected, or whether the words in one note, “ to be paid as soon as collected [126]*126from my accounts at Pokeepsie,” and in the other, “ to be paid as soon as collected at Pokeepsie, now in the hands of H. B.' P. of that place,” ought to be understood merely as prescribing the time of payment, by indicating the fund out of which the debtor expected to pay, and thereby securing to him the delay necessary to render it available. Both notes contain direct acknowledgments of indebtedness, the language being “ Due Messrs. U. & P. --dollars, ” although only one of them discloses the cause of it (goods sold) ; and we think the subsequent words, “to be paid,” &c., were not intended to show' that the debts were conditional — depending for their existence as valid demands against the makers, upon the fact that the sums to be paid could be collected out of the accounts referred to, but only to prescribe the time of payment, by reference not to days and years, but to a reasonable time for the collection of the accounts. This construction is warranted by the language used, and we have no doubt will execute the real intention of the parties.

It being admitted that all had been collected upon these claims that could be collected, the term prescribed for the payment of the notes had expired, and they became due according to our construction of them. The judgment is therefore reversed, and the cause remanded,

Judge Ryland concurring.

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

Related

Ewell v. Landing
85 A.2d 475 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1963)
Brown v. State Automobile Insurance Assn.
12 N.W.2d 712 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1944)
Bank of Corning v. Consolidated School District No. 6
54 S.W.2d 486 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1932)
Dille v. Longwell
188 Iowa 606 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1920)
Allen v. Estate of Allen
217 Ill. App. 260 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1920)
Goldsberry v. Thomas
165 S.W. 1179 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1914)
Rosenberg v. F. J. Lewis Manufacturing Co.
171 Ill. App. 454 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1912)
Earle v. Sunnyside Land Co.
88 P. 920 (California Supreme Court, 1907)
Locher v. Kuechenmiester
98 S.W. 92 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1906)
Hogan v. Globe Mutual Building & Loan Ass'n
71 P. 706 (California Supreme Court, 1903)
Culver v. Caldwell
137 Ala. 125 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1902)
Maze v. Baird
89 Mo. App. 348 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1901)
Hood v. Hampton Plains Exploration Co.
106 F. 408 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Nevada, 1901)
Howe v. Bristow
65 Mo. App. 624 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1896)
Noland v. Bull
33 P. 983 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1893)
Whiting v. Gray
27 Fla. 482 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1891)
First National Bank v. Skeen
29 Mo. App. 115 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1888)
Tureman v. Stephens
83 Mo. 218 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1884)
Harkinson v. Dry Placer Amalgamating Co.
6 Colo. 269 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1882)
Randall v. Johnson
59 Miss. 317 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1881)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
22 Mo. 124, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ubsdell-v-cunningham-mo-1855.