Bank of Missouri v. Haden
Supreme Court of Missouri
Error to Greene Circuit Court. The petition is certainly bad, even under our remarkable loose system of practice, and the court should have so holden it. The point raised by the demurrer was solely a question of pleading. The alleged contemporaneous parol agreement, even if admissible at all, could only have been properly urged on the trial, and has nothing to do with the the sufficiency of the petition; an issue of law, is not of fact.
Read the full summary
Error to Greene Circuit Court. The petition is certainly bad, even under our remarkable loose system of practice, and the court should have so holden it. The point raised by the demurrer was solely a question of pleading. The alleged contemporaneous parol agreement, even if admissible at all, could only have been properly urged on the trial, and has nothing to do with the the sufficiency of the petition; an issue of law, is not of fact. (Jaccard v. Anderson, 32 Mo. 188, and cases there cited.) This contemporaneous parol agreement is used as an excuse for failure to use the means necessary to…
1Opinion of the CourtBates, Judge
The amended petition in this case is as follows: “ Plaintiff amends petition and states that the defendants William Hendricks, George W. Hancock, with one Sterling Gilmore (now deceased, and of whose estate said Elisha Headlee has been duly appointed and qualified as administz’ator, and in that capacity sued and judgment asked against him in said capacity), by their negotiable, promissory note herewith filed, dated August the 1st, 1861, promised to pay to the order of the said William Hendricks, four months after the date thereof, the sum of two thousand dollars, for value received,…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Morgan v. BouseSupreme Court of Missouri · 1873
- Wilson v. Polk CountySupreme Court of Missouri · 1892
- Board of Com'rs v. SherwoodCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1894
- McCrae v. SpiresSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1922