TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Lewis v. Bowen's Administrator

Lewis, in Error v. Bowen's Administrator, in Error

Lewis v. Bowen's Adm'r, 29 Mo. 202 (1859)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Missouri · State Highest Courts
Decided
October 15, 1859
Judges
Ewing, Napton, Scott
Citations
29 Mo. 202
Headnotes
1. No endorsement or written assignment of a promissory note is necessary to enable the holder thereof to maintain an action thereon in his own name.
Summary
Error to Marion Circuit Court.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Ewing

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Ewing, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This was a suit commenced in the county court of Marion county upon a note executed by William Bowen, deceased, to James Parker, and by him transferred by delivery merely to the plaintiff Lewis. Lewis had judgment in the county court, from which Bowen appealed to the circuit court. On the trial in the circuit court, the execution of the note having been duly proved, plaintiff offered it in evidence, which was rejected. He thereupon suffered a nonsuit, which he moved to set aside. The motion was overruled, and the cause is brought to this court by writ of error. The only point in the case is the refusal of the court to permit the note to be read in evidence, because there was no assignment in writing or endorsement.

Under the practice act now in force, which abolishes the distinctions in the forms of actions and requires suits to be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest, no en *203 dorsement or assignment in writing is necessary to enable the bolder of a promissory note to maintain an action in his own name. This point was decided in the case of Boeka v. Nuella, 28 Mo. 180 . See also Bennett v. Pound, ib. 599.

The judgment will be reversed and the cause remanded;

Judge Napton concurring. Judge Scott absent.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1879–1880: 11891–1892: 11907–1908: 11915–1916: 118792026peak 1879 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Davis v. Carson69 Mo. 609 (1879)
  2. Dawson v. Wombles100 S.W. 547 (Mo. Ct. App. 1907)
  3. Willison v. Smith52 Mo. App. 133 (1892)
  4. Silverthorne v. Summit Lumber Co.176 S.W. 441 (Mo. Ct. App. 1915)

Most recent

  1. Silverthorne v. Summit Lumber Co.176 S.W. 441 (Mo. Ct. App. 1915)
  2. Dawson v. Wombles100 S.W. 547 (Mo. Ct. App. 1907)
  3. Willison v. Smith52 Mo. App. 133 (1892)
  4. Davis v. Carson69 Mo. 609 (1879)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Boeka v. Nuella, 28 Mo. 180 (1859) 24

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list