Henihg v. Whaley

The plaintiff, as administrator of his son, brought suit upon a paper alleged to be a due-bill, given upon a named date, for $337.45, a copy of which was attached to the petition. So far as appears from the record, the defendant filed no demurrer, and there was no plea of non est factum. On the contrary, the only defense entered was that the defendant had paid and fully discharged the due-bill, which he tacitly and impliedly admitted was for the amount of money sued for. Upon its introduction in evidence it appeared that it did not contain the dollar-mark which appeared in the copy attached…