Grant v. Winn
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from the Clay Circuit Court. 1st. That the court erred in permitting the article of agreement to be read in evidence. 2d. That the court erred in overruling the motion of Grant, to set aside the finding of the court sitting as a jury, and grant a new trial. 3d. That the agreement was variant from the one set in the declaration.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Clay Circuit Court. 1st. That the court erred in permitting the article of agreement to be read in evidence. 2d. That the court erred in overruling the motion of Grant, to set aside the finding of the court sitting as a jury, and grant a new trial. 3d. That the agreement was variant from the one set in the declaration. See 4 Starlrie, 1598-9 ; 1589 1st ty’s Pleadings. 1st. That there is no material variance between the writing as declared on, and the writing as given in evidence, the substance of the allegation being that the appellant promised to pay on the 25th Dec. 1840.…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion of the Court by
Napton, Judge.
The appellee sued Grant in assumpsit, upon a promissory note for $62 50. The declaration averred, that on the 25th day of August, 1840, at, &c., defendant made his certain agreement in writing, dated the day and year aforesaid, and thereby then and there promised to pay, &c. Upon the trial, the plaintiff offered in evidence a note, answering to the description of the declaration, except that it bore no date at all. The defendant below objected to the note, but the court allowed it to go to the jury. There was a verdict and judgment for plaintiff, motion…
2Cited by3 opinions
- State v. McDonaldSupreme Court of Missouri · 1877
- Seman v. IllgenfritzMissouri Court of Appeals · 1929
- Carter v. Preston & StetsonMississippi Supreme Court · 1875