Lindell v. Lee
Cases that cite this one
1 later published case cites this decision.
- Wright v. Radcliffe (Mo. Ct. App. 1895)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the court.
The mortgage was collateral to the note, and the plaintiff could not have a judgment for the foreclosure of the mortgage if she could not have recovered upon the note.
The plaintiff’s testator having been a member of the firm which gave the note, she, by purchasing the note, which she was equally bound with the other members of the firm to pay, acquired a demand for so much money as she had expended for the use of the firm, which would be allowed her upon a settlement of the partnership. There is no averment or evidence of a settlement of the partnership accounts, or that this is the only unliquidated item. She cannot recover on the note. (McKnight v. McCutchen, 27 Mo. 436, and other cases.)
Judgment confirmed;
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.