Case ID: mo_7/html/0219-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Napton, Judge.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Nelson v. The Bank of the State of Missouri.
    Petition in debt will lie on a negotiable promissory note discounted by the Bank of the State of Missouri. The 29th section of the bank charter was not intended to limit the remedy upon notes ed by the Bank, but to fix the liabilities of tho several parties to the instrument.
    Potion h, promissory ed bv tiV." ?ank fctato of Missouri. h., ^1 ti,t?°bani-charter to°Vmit "the remedy apon notes diseoun-tod by-the ^¡j,. lj¡*b¡,° iti»-* of the so-to^befnstru-
    Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas of St. Louis county.
    
      J. B. King for Appellant:
    
    That the appellee cannot maintain petition in debt in this cause. See the act incorporating the Bank of the State of Missouri, sec. 29, p. 19, of the Board Acts of 1836 and 1837.
    Also, there is no assignment averred -in the petition in this case as required by law. See the act in the Digest of Mo.., page 449, giving the remedy by petition in debt of the instrument sued on, as the law requires.
   Opinion of the Court by

Napton, Judge.

The Bank of Missouri sued the appellant by petition in debt, on a promissory note made by Nelson to John Evoy, and by .McEvoy endorsed to Francis Impey, and by Impey endorsed to the Bank. Defendant below demurred to the petition. Demurrer was overruled and judgment .• / ° given lor the Bank. .

To reverse this judgment, it is urged that petition in debt will not lie on a note negotiable, discounted by the Bank of Missouri. The latter clause of the 29tlrsection of the Bank charter is supposed to sustain this position. Bv that section ■ - . , J , , , , it is provided that “all bids and notes, whether under seal or otherwise, at any time discounted by said Bank, shall be and are hereby placed upon the same footing as foreign bills of exchange, so that the like remedy shall be had for the recovery thereof, against the drawer or endorser and with the like effect, except so far as relates to damages.”

This section was not intended to fix or limit the remedy U^°n notes discounted ai Bank, but to fix the liabilities of the several parties to the instrument. Such was the construction given by this court to a similar provision in the act G0Ilcerning bonds and notes. The case is not now accessible, but it is believed that this case rests upon precisely the-same principle upon which that was determined.

Judgment affirmed.