Sapington v. Jeffries
Supreme Court of Missouri
APPEAL from Franklin Circuit Court. STATEMENT OP THE CASE. This is an action brought on a note executed by one C. D. Kanada, and defendant, as follows: “One day after date, we or either ofjus promise to pay to J. McDonald, adm’r of ihe estate of Huntington dec’d, sixty dollars and ninety cents, with ten per cent, interest, from date until paid. This 2nd day of January, 1844. C. D. KANADA, A. W. JEFFRIES.”
Read the full summary
APPEAL from Franklin Circuit Court. STATEMENT OP THE CASE. This is an action brought on a note executed by one C. D. Kanada, and defendant, as follows: “One day after date, we or either ofjus promise to pay to J. McDonald, adm’r of ihe estate of Huntington dec’d, sixty dollars and ninety cents, with ten per cent, interest, from date until paid. This 2nd day of January, 1844. C. D. KANADA, A. W. JEFFRIES.” The defendant filed an answer to plaintiff’s petition, stating 1st. That he did not owe the sum of money sued for, or any part thereof. 2nd. That he notified McDonald in his lile time, to…
1Opinion of the CourtRyland, J.
The question in this case involves the propriety of the ruling of the court below, in sustaining the motion of the plaintiff, to strike out the defendant’s answer.
The defendant’s counsel contends, that the answer was good and sufficient, and that the court erred in sustaining the motion to strike it out. He contends, that it, is a good defence, for a security in a note to show that he gave verbal notice to the plaintiff’s agent, or attorney, to sue on the note, and that the agent neglected or failed to sue.
The answer in this case sets forth no facts, amounting to a defence in law, to the…
2Cited by12 opinions
- Paddock v. SomesSupreme Court of Missouri · 1890
- Howell v. StewartSupreme Court of Missouri · 1873
- Young v. RenshawMissouri Court of Appeals · 1903
- Conway v. CampbellMissouri Court of Appeals · 1889
- Cashman v. AndersonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1857
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.