Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

31 Mo. 28

Brady v. Chandler

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided October 15, 1860

Supreme Court of Missouri · decided 1860-10-15

Louis Law Commissioner’s Court. This was a suit originally brought before a justice of the peace. The case was carried by appeal to the St. Louis law commissioner’s court. The grounds on which the decision of the supreme court is based are sufficiently apparent from the opinion of the court below. I. The justice had jurisdiction. The suit was brought in the name of the pi’oper party.

Relies on McGowen v. West · Jeffers v. Oliver ex rel. Bryans

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1860-10-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently March 1940

5 state decisions

30186018701880189019001910192019301940decided

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,

¶2This was an action on an instrument of which the following is a copy: “ St. Louis, August 5, 1857. Due Brady & Bro. one hundred and fifty dollars on demand. [Signed] J. L. Chandler.” On this instrument was the following endorsement : “You will pay William Brady the within amount of said due bill. [Signed] Brady & Bro.”

¶3The suit was entitled “ Brady & Bro., which firm is com*29posed of Horace D. Brady and Walker K. Brady, suing to the use of William Brady, v. J. L. Chandler.” The assignment was proved, which was excepted to by the defendant. There was a judgment for the plaintiffs.

¶4The instrument sued on was a note, and the justice of the peace had jurisdiction of the action. (McGowen v. West, 7 Mo. 569.)

¶5Before the action was brought Brady & Bro. had assigned the note to William Brady. After the assignment, there was no title in Brady & Bro., legal or equitable. They then had no right to bring this action. They were the plaintiffs as the cause stood. The endorsing a suit for the benefit of another is a matter of no importance in determining who are the real parties to the suit. Although the action was stated to be to the use of William Brady, that did not make him a party. The suit should have been brought in the name of William Brady. (Jeffers v. Oliver, 5 Mo. 433.)

¶6The judgment is reversed.

The other judges concur.
/31/mo/28 · .json · Public domain