Maverick v. Heard
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Pettis Circuit Oou/rt. — How. J. P. StrotheRj Judge. (1) There was no sufficient cause shown why the claim was not presented at the time it should have been under the notice, and the court erred in finding that there was such, R. S., sec. 373; Ellison v. Lindsley, 33 N. J. Equity, 258. (2) Plaintiff asks simply to be relieved from the effect of the carelessness of both himself and attorney. He cannot have such relief.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Pettis Circuit Oou/rt. — How. J. P. StrotheRj Judge. (1) There was no sufficient cause shown why the claim was not presented at the time it should have been under the notice, and the court erred in finding that there was such, R. S., sec. 373; Ellison v. Lindsley, 33 N. J. Equity, 258. (2) Plaintiff asks simply to be relieved from the effect of the carelessness of both himself and attorney. He cannot have such relief. Field v. Matson, 8 Mo. 686; Kerby v. Caldwell, 10 Mo. 392; Austin v. Nelson, 11 Mo. 192; Carondelet v. Allen’s Ecc’rs, 13 Mo. 556; Harbar v. Railroad, 32 Mo. 522;…
1Opinion of the CourtBlack, J.
The plaintiff presented a demand for forty-four hundred and seventy dollars evidenced by a promisory note, to defendant as the assignee of Baldwin for allowance. The assignee disallowed the claim, and the plaintiff appealed to the circuit court where the demand was allowed. The assignee appealed to the Kansas City court of appeals, and the cause was transferred to this court, because the amount in dispute exceeds twenty-five hundred dollars.
That the claim is a just one and should be allowed, if presented in time, is not questioned. The only objection made to it is that it was not presented in…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Woods v. Cainsville BankMissouri Court of Appeals · 1928