Willard v. Moies

Decided March 15, 1860

Supreme Court of Missouri · decided 1860-03-15

<p>1. No written assignment of a promissory note is necessary in order to entitle the holder to sue thereon in his own name.</p>

Relies on Boeka v. Nuella

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1860-03-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently May 1926

6 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Scott, Judge,

¶1delivered the opinion of the court.

¶2This was an action on a negotiable promissory note. This suit was in the name of the holder of the note, Lucius A. Willard. The defence was that the plaintiff was not the legal owner or holder of the note sued upon, and that it was never assigned to the plaintiff.

¶3In the case of Boeka v. Nuella, 28 Mo. 180, it was held that no written assignment was necessary in order to enable the holder of a promissory note to sue thereon in his own name. The owner is prima facie the equitable owner, and under the statute the real party in interest may bring the action in his own name. This view of the subject makes it unnecessary to look into the deposition proving the assignment.

¶4The other judges concurring, the judgment is affirmed, with ten per cent, damages.