Macy v. Kendall
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from St. Louis Court of Common Pleas. I. The court erred in admitting in evidence the statutes of New York. 1. Because said statute was not pleaded, nor was any right asserted or claimed in the petition under the laws of Now York. If the plaintiff claimed anything under the laws of New York, it was his duty to have pleaded that right and that law.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis Court of Common Pleas. I. The court erred in admitting in evidence the statutes of New York. 1. Because said statute was not pleaded, nor was any right asserted or claimed in the petition under the laws of Now York. If the plaintiff claimed anything under the laws of New York, it was his duty to have pleaded that right and that law. (Leake v. Elliott, 4 Mo. 446; 7 Mo. 22.) Not having donó so, it was irrelevant and error to introduce the laws of New York. 2. The averment in the petition that the note was payable in the city of New York was not any pleading of the statutes…
1Opinion of the CourtBay, Judge
Defendant was sued in the St. Louis Court of Common Pleas upon a promissory note in the words and figures following, to wit:
“ $2,500. St. Louis, Mo., August 25, 1858.
“ Six months after date, I promise to pay to the order of H. Berdan twenty-five hundred dollars, value received — payable at Park Bank in the city of New York.
H. N. Kendall.”
The note was assigned before maturity to plaintiff for value.
The answer of defendant admits the execution of the note and the assignment, but sets up as a defence that it was an accommodation note and executed without any consideration.
Upon the trial, it was…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Second National Bank v. HoweSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1889
- Runciman v. BrownMichigan Supreme Court · 1923
- Patterson v. Bank of British ColumbiaOregon Supreme Court · 1895