Case Name: The National Bank of Commerce, Appellant, v. G. W. Pennington et al., Respondents
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1890-12-01
Citations: 42 Mo. App. 355
Docket Number: 
Parties: The National Bank of Commerce, Appellant, v. G. W. Pennington et al., Respondents.
Judges: All concur.
Reporter: Missouri Appeal Reports
Volume: 42
Pages: 355–356

Head Matter:
The National Bank of Commerce, Appellant, v. G. W. Pennington et al., Respondents.
Kansas City Court of Appeals,
December 1, 1890.
1. Bills and Notes: evidence as to purchase. An indorsee of a negotiable promissory note must show that his purchase was made from the payee or his assignee.
3.--: INDORSEMENT : evidence aliunde, An indorsement itself of such note, unsupported by evidence aliunde, is not sufficient to show title in the indorsee.
Appeal from the Cass Circuit Court. — Hon. Chas. W. Sloan, Judge. ■
Affirmed.
Oscar W. Byram, for appellant.
The court committed error in sustaining the demurrer to the evidence of plaintiff. The note was a negotiable one, for value received, was dated June 6, 1886, due October 1, 1888, payable to the order of Smith and. Keating Implement Company,.' a corporation, for one-hundred and forty dollars, at the Allen Banking Company, in Harrisonville, Missouri; interest ten percent, with a property statement, and a waiver of protest, etc. Tiedeman on Commercial Paper, sec. 29e/ Schlesinger v. Arline, • 31 Fed. Rep. 648; Stillwell v. Craig, 58-Mo. 24. ‘
R. T. Railey and James T. Burney, for respondents.
The petition alleged that the payees of the note sued on, “for value received, indorsed and delivered the same to plaintiff.” The proof failed to sustain these allegations, and the demurrer to the evidence was properly given. Bank v. Donnell, 35 Mo. 373; Dorn v. Parsons, 56 Mo. 601; Cavill v. Thorp, 30 Mo. App. 133.

Opinion:
Ellison, J.
This action is based on a negotiable promissory note, plaintiff claiming to be an indorsee for value in the usual course of business before maturity. A demurrer to plaintiff's testimony was sustained and plaintiff took a nonsuit. After an unsuccessful motion to-set same aside, it'appeals here.
The court's action will have to be affirmed. The testimony fails to show from whom plaintiff purchased the note. The proof should show that the purchase was made from the payee or his assignee. Mechanics' Bank v. Donnell, 35 Mo. 373. The petition alleged that the note was indorsed by the payees and delivered to plaintiff. The testimony is silent as to this allegation. It should have been shown -sufficiently to raise a prima facie case. Reinhard v. Coal Co., 25 Mo. App. 350.
II. An indorsement purporting to be signed by the payees of the note was read with the note ; but an indorsement or assignment itself, unsupported by evidence aliunde, is not sufficient.
The judgment is affirmed.
All concur.