Weaver ex rel. Webb v. McElhenon

Supreme Court of Missouri

Weaver ex rel. Webb v. McElhenon

13 Mo. 89

CourtSupreme Court of Missouri

DecidedJanuary 15, 1850

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 13 Mo. 89 (Weaver ex rel. Webb v. McElhenon) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Weaver ex rel. Webb v. McElhenon, 13 Mo. 89 (Mo. 1850).

Pincite

Opinion

RYLAHD, J.

Prom the above statement, the only point for the adjudication of this court, is the judgment of the Circuit Court in sustaining the defendant’s demurrer to the plaintiff’s petition. We are of the opinion that the Circuit Court committed error in sustaining the defendant’s demurrer. The only objection on the record appears to be, the abbreviation of the Christian name of McElhenon. The petition sets forth his full name of “Christopher,” and the note is signed by him in the abbreviated name thus : “Christy” or “Christ.” We do not consider this abbreviation, and the manner it has been set forth in the petition of the plaintiff, as an objection liable to be reached by demurrer. If it was a variance even, the same ought to have been taken advantage of oil the trial, by motion to exclude the note as evidence on account of such variance, or by craving-oyer, and spreading out the instrument and then demurring. See Sumners et al. v. Tice, 1 Mo. R. 349. We do not consider this a material or fatal variance. It is, in our opinion, simply an abbreviation, and according to the decisions of this court heretofore made in the cases of Birch & Hayden v. Rogers, 3 Mo. R. 227, and Penton v. Perkins, 3 Mo. R. 144, “the abbreviation's of a man’s given name are so-common, that, without any violence to the laws of our land, the courts may take judicial notice of them.”(

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

RYLAHD, J.

Prom the above statement, the only point for the adjudication of this court, is the judgment of the Circuit Court in sustaining the defendant’s demurrer to the plaintiff’s petition. We are of the opinion that the Circuit Court committed error in sustaining the defendant’s demurrer. The only objection on the record appears to be, the abbreviation of the Christian name of McElhenon. The petition sets forth his full name of “Christopher,” and the note is signed by him in the abbreviated name thus : “Christy” or “Christ.” We do not consider this abbreviation, and the manner it has been set forth in the petition of the plaintiff, as an objection liable to be reached by demurrer. If it was a variance even, the same ought to have been taken advantage of oil the trial, by motion to exclude the note as evidence on account of such variance, or by craving-oyer, and spreading out the instrument and then demurring. See Sumners et al. v. Tice, 1 Mo. R. 349. We do not consider this a material or fatal variance. It is, in our opinion, simply an abbreviation, and according to the decisions of this court heretofore made in the cases of Birch & Hayden v. Rogers, 3 Mo. R. 227, and Penton v. Perkins, 3 Mo. R. 144, “the abbreviation's of a man’s given name are so-common, that, without any violence to the laws of our land, the courts may take judicial notice of them.”(

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 Mo. 89, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/weaver-ex-rel-webb-v-mcelhenon-mo-1850.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack