Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

38 Mo. 188

Buchner v. Liebig

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided March 15, 1866

Supreme Court of Missouri · decided 1866-03-15

<p>Note — Demand—Protest.—A security signing a nóte as joint maker, is no' *3is-charged for failure to demand payment and to give notice of its refusal.</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1866-03-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently May 1980

13 state decisions

301866187018801890190019101920193019401950196019701980decided

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 →

Wagner, Judge,

¶1delivered the opinion of the court.

¶2This was an action against the defendants, as joint makers of a promissory note. The' defendant Schuts stated in his answer that he signed the note as endorser, and asked to be discharged because there was neither protest nor notice. Upon the trial, Liebig was introduced as a witness for his co-defendant, and stated that the plaintiff loaned him the money and agreed to take Schuts as endorser on the note; in reply to a question from the court, he then said that Schuts signed the note with him, as security. The court rendered judgment for plaintiff. There is no error in the record.

¶3Judgment affirmed.

Judge Holmes concurs; Judge Lovelace absent.
/38/mo/188 · .json · Public domain