Grant v. Winn

7 Mo. 188
Supreme Court of Missouri·Decided September 15, 1841·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Opinion of the Court by

Napton, Judge.

The appellee sued Grant in assumpsit, upon a promissory note for $62 50. The declaration averred, that on the 25th day of August, 1840, at, &c., defendant made his certain agreement in writing, dated the day and year aforesaid, and thereby then and there promised to pay, &c. Upon the trial, the plaintiff offered in evidence a note, answering to the description of the declaration, except that it bore no date at all. The defendant below objected to the note, but the court allowed it to go to the jury. There was a verdict and judgment for plaintiff, motion for a new trial by defendant, and exceptions duly saved.

instating the date of a promissory note, it must be truly stated ; bnd if the note bears no date, it may be alleged to have been made at any day ; and in that case, the words “bearing date,” or “dated,” being descriptive words, must be omitted. 1 Chitty’s Plead., 258. It is the opinion of [190]*190this court that it was error to allow this note to go to the

Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Grant v. Winn, 7 Mo. 188 (Mo. 1841).

7 Mo. 188 (Grant v. Winn) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Seman v. Illgenfritz
15 S.W.2d 912 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1929)
State v. McDonald
67 Mo. 13 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1877)
Carter v. Preston & Stetson
51 Miss. 423 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1875)