Griffin v. Samuel
Supreme Court of Missouri
Error to Circuit Court of Monroe County. 1. The. writing read in evidence does not appear to be the one sued upon, or that is set forth -n the petition. 3. The judgment of the court below is given against Isaac N. Griffin and Henry Kinote, when from the return of the sheriff it appears that the sheriffs summons was only served on Kinote. ■ 3. The note set forth in the petition purports to have been executed by Isaac N. Griffin & Henry Kinote, and the one offered in evidence…
Read the full summary
Error to Circuit Court of Monroe County. 1. The. writing read in evidence does not appear to be the one sued upon, or that is set forth -n the petition. 3. The judgment of the court below is given against Isaac N. Griffin and Henry Kinote, when from the return of the sheriff it appears that the sheriffs summons was only served on Kinote. ■ 3. The note set forth in the petition purports to have been executed by Isaac N. Griffin & Henry Kinote, and the one offered in evidence appears to be executed by J. 4c J.- N. Griffin and Henry Kinote.
1Opinion of the Court
Statement of the case made* and. opinion of the Gofert delivered by
Napton, Judge.
*51The defendant in error sued the’ plaintiff, in error, by petition in debt, in the Circuit Court of Monroe County. The petition is as follows:
Jameson Samuel & Churchill Samuel, formerly trading under the name and style of Jameson Samuel Co., plaintiff), state that the;, are the legal owner., of a bond, against the defendants, Isaac N. Griffin [signed by said Griffin by the name and description of I. N. Griffin] and Henry Kinote which said note was executed to the said plaintiff by the name and description of…
2Cited by11 opinions
- State v. DeWittSupreme Court of Missouri · 1905
- Schell v. LelandSupreme Court of Missouri · 1870
- State v. GrossmanSupreme Court of Missouri · 1908
- State v. CroninSupreme Court of Missouri · 1905
- Pearson v. GillettMissouri Court of Appeals · 1893
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.