Dickinson v. Marsh
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the Barton Circuit Court. — Hon. D. P. Stratton, Judge. (1) It is not true, as ruled by the court, that “this is a suit on an alleged accepted order in writing, or bill of exchange, and proof of acceptance must be in writing, and could not otherwise be established.” The court erred in so ruling. R. S. 1889, sec. 724; Lockhart v. Moss, 53 Mo.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Barton Circuit Court. — Hon. D. P. Stratton, Judge. (1) It is not true, as ruled by the court, that “this is a suit on an alleged accepted order in writing, or bill of exchange, and proof of acceptance must be in writing, and could not otherwise be established.” The court erred in so ruling. R. S. 1889, sec. 724; Lockhart v. Moss, 53 Mo. App. 633. (2) All that plaintiff is required to do, under the code, to present a proper petition, is to make a plain statement of the facts constituting his cause of action. R. S. 1889, see. 2039; Or egg v. Bunn, 38 Mo. App. 286; Balgreenv.…
1Opinion of the CourtGill, J.
— This action is founded on the following bill of exchange alleged to have been accepted by the defendant:
“Noyembee 26th, 1892.
“Mr. Fd. Marsh.
“Please pay to J. E. Dickinson eighty'dollars and thirty cents.
“Feed Nichols.”
Plaintiff offered certain evidence tending to prove that Nichols, the drawer, owed the plaintiff, and that defendant, Marsh, prior to the date of the order, informed plaintiff that if he (plaintiff) would procure an order from said Nichols on him (Marsh) for said *568sum, he (Marsh) would pay the same. This proffered evidence was, on objection of the defendant, excluded as…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Lockhart v. MossMissouri Court of Appeals · 1893
3Cited by5 opinions
- Westberg v. Chicago Lumber & Coal Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1903
- Safety Motors, Inc. v. Elk Horn Bank & Trust Co.District Court, W.D. Arkansas · 1954
- Erickson v. InmanOregon Supreme Court · 1898
- Thompson v. Main Street BankMissouri Court of Appeals · 1929
- Citizens' Trust Co. v. Abston, Wynne & Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1917