Smith v. Dean
Supreme Court of Missouri
Error to St. Louis Circuit Court. 1. It was not necessary to' state in the petition how the bond sued on was assigned. The statement that the plaintiffs were the legal holders of the bond, as trustees of Crupper* for the benefit of his-creditors, is a sufficient averment of title in said plaintiffs. 2* By the first and second sections of the third article of the act entitled ‘1 an act to reform the pleadings and practice in courts of justice,” the plaintiffs had a right to…
Read the full summary
Error to St. Louis Circuit Court. 1. It was not necessary to' state in the petition how the bond sued on was assigned. The statement that the plaintiffs were the legal holders of the bond, as trustees of Crupper* for the benefit of his-creditors, is a sufficient averment of title in said plaintiffs. 2* By the first and second sections of the third article of the act entitled ‘1 an act to reform the pleadings and practice in courts of justice,” the plaintiffs had a right to sue in their own names, whether the bond had been assigned to them, by any instrument of writing or not, if they were the…
1Opinion of the CourtGamble, Judge
The plaintiffs claim to recover on a bond made by the defendant, Dean, payable to one Crupper. They allege that they are the legal holders of the bond, as trustees of Crupper, for the benefit of his creditors. The bond was payable on the 2d'of September, 1840. There is no allegation that the bond was assigned to the plaintiffs. The petition was demurred to and the demurrer was sustained. Two questions are presented on the demurrer: 1. Whether the title of the plaintiffs to the bond is sufficiently stated in the petition. 2. Whether the petition does not show that the action on the bond is…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Exchange Bank of Novinger v. TurnerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1929
- Wells, Fargo & Co. v. McCarthyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1907
- Garner v. McCulLoughSupreme Court of Missouri · 1871
- Kelly v. BeauchampSupreme Court of Missouri · 1875