Legal Opinion

Pier v. Heinrichoffen

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided March 15, 1873PublishedCited by 40 opinions

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court. “An averment in the usual form, alleging due presentment, and notice, is sustained by proof of any state of facts showing an excuse according to the custom of merchants.” (Greenl., Ev.

Read the full summary

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court. “An averment in the usual form, alleging due presentment, and notice, is sustained by proof of any state of facts showing an excuse according to the custom of merchants.” (Greenl., Ev. Vol. 2,197 ; Norton vs. Lewis, 2 Conn.,178; Hopkins vs. Liswell,12 Mass. 52; Williams vs. Mathews, 8 Cowen, 252; Wind-ham Bank vs. Norton, et als., 22 Oonn., 219.) The rejection of any material testimony by the court, entitles the party to then take his non-suit, and this court will not refuse to set it aside because the record does not show, that plaintiff could make the…

1Opinion of the CourtEwing, Judge

This is an action on a promissory note by the plaintiffs as indorsees against defendants as indorsers, payable at the office of Williams, in St. Paul, Minnesota; the note bears date St. Louis, October 12, 1860, and is payable on the first day of July thereafter, (1861.) The petition contains the usual averments of presentment and demand of payment at the maturity of said *334note, refusal to pay, protest of the same, and that defendants were duly notified thereof. The answer of defendants is a denial of the allegations of the petition. Plaintiffs made application for a continuance of the cause,…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Lumbert & Co. v. PalmerSupreme Court of Iowa · 1870
  2. Shultz v. DepuyThe Superior Court of New York City · 1856
  3. Cole's Adm'r v. WintercostTexas Supreme Court · 1854

3Cited by40 opinions

  1. Price v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1909
  2. Lanitz v. KingSupreme Court of Missouri · 1887
  3. Spoeneman v. UhriSupreme Court of Missouri · 1933
  4. Nichols, Shepherd & Co. v. LarkinSupreme Court of Missouri · 1883
  5. Mallinckrodt Chemical Works v. NemnichSupreme Court of Missouri · 1902

35 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API