Christy's Administrator v. Horne
Supreme Court of Missouri
Error to Dade Circuit Court. This was a suit brought by Whitsett, as administrator of Bainbridge Christy, deceased, against Wm. Horne, Andrew Horne, and A. M. Horne, upon a promissory note executed by said defendants in favor of said Christy.
Read the full summary
Error to Dade Circuit Court. This was a suit brought by Whitsett, as administrator of Bainbridge Christy, deceased, against Wm. Horne, Andrew Horne, and A. M. Horne, upon a promissory note executed by said defendants in favor of said Christy. A. M. Horne answered, admitting the execution of the note, and averring that he executed the same merely as security for William and Andrew Horne; that he caused a notice in writing (now lost) to be served on plaintiff, requiring plaintiff forthwith to commence suit against the said Wm. Horne and Andrew Horne, which said notice the said plaintiff…
1Opinion of the CourtScott, Judge
1. The notice to sue, as stated in the defendant’s answer, is sufficient. The objection to it is, that it requires suit to be brought against Wm. Horne and Andrew Horne, whereas it should have used the very words of the statute, and required that the suit should be brought against the 'principal debtor and other parties liable. This is a very nice objection, and we see no force in it; nor any reason why the statute should receive so strict a construction. In the case of Benton’s adm’r v. Lacy, (17 Mo. 399,) the words of the notice were, “ will no longer stand security for the principal debtor…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Routon's Administrators v. LacySupreme Court of Missouri · 1853
3Cited by1 opinion
- Longan v. CarpenterSupreme Court of Colorado · 1870