Cravens v. Gillilan
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Grundy Circuit Court. — Hon. G. D. Burgess, Judge. This was a suit against Nathan Gillilan on a promissory note. The petition was in the ordinary form. The answer was a plea of non est factum.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Grundy Circuit Court. — Hon. G. D. Burgess, Judge. This was a suit against Nathan Gillilan on a promissory note. The petition was in the ordinary form. The answer was a plea of non est factum. An amended reply denied generally each and every allegation of the answer, and further averred specially that “after the execution of the note in suit, as stated in plaintiff’s petition, to-wit: On or about the — day of June, 1874, upon having his attention called to said note, defendant, Nathan Gillilan,. told plaintiff that said note was all right, and that be would pay it, and thereby…
1Opinion of the CourtSherwood, C. J.
This case has been here before, and is reported in 63 Mo. 28, and we then discussed the principles we thought applicable to this case. In consequence,, however, of a retrial, the discussion of other points becomes necessary.
I
The attention of the court not having been called, either in the motion for new trial or that in arrest, to the alleged error of refusing to strike out the amended repli*528cation of plaintiff, it would seem such error, if any, has been thereby cured.
II
But granting it has not, the error at worst, is but a harmless one. Eor the replication, though informally drawn, because it…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Cravens v. GillilanSupreme Court of Missouri · 1876
3Cited by4 opinions
- Bowlin v. CreelMissouri Court of Appeals · 1895
- Ferrandini v. Bankers Life Ass'nWashington Supreme Court · 1909
- State ex rel. Jones v. JonesMissouri Court of Appeals · 1893
- Babcock v. United Railways Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1911