Wolf v. Lauman
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court. I. The petition alleges, that on the day the note in question became due, “ said plaintiff caused payment of said note to be demanded of the said maker, which was refused.” On the trial of the case, the plaintiff was allowed to prove that he had made certain efforts to obtain demand upon the ■maker of the note, but had failed to do so. This was error, as the pleadings are framed.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court. I. The petition alleges, that on the day the note in question became due, “ said plaintiff caused payment of said note to be demanded of the said maker, which was refused.” On the trial of the case, the plaintiff was allowed to prove that he had made certain efforts to obtain demand upon the ■maker of the note, but had failed to do so. This was error, as the pleadings are framed. Under the old practice, the proof might have been admissible ; but under the codes in New York and in this State, it is necessary to plead specially the facts, dispensing with the…
1Opinion of the CourtBates, Judge
This was a suit against the endorser of a negotiable promissory note.
The petition averred demand of payment of the maker and refusal, and notice to the endorser of the presentation of the note, demand of payment and non-payment. The answer put in issue these averments :
1. As to the presentation of the note to the maker and demand of payment, there was none; but the plaintiff showed such a diligent attempt to find the maker as excxrsed an actual demand. The court held that sufficient. The statute requires the court to disregard any error or defect in the pleadings or proceedings which shall…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Nave v. RichardsonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1865