Harkness & Russell v. Jones
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the Jaclcson Circuit Court. — Hon. J. H. Slover, Judge. The petition itself ” nowhere states that the note was ‘‘expressed for value received.” We suppose that the appellees would not for a moment claim that the copy of the note is any part of the petition, and that it is any more than if attached a.nd made an exhibit to the petition, hence, it is not what it claims to be, a negotiable promissory note.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Jaclcson Circuit Court. — Hon. J. H. Slover, Judge. The petition itself ” nowhere states that the note was ‘‘expressed for value received.” We suppose that the appellees would not for a moment claim that the copy of the note is any part of the petition, and that it is any more than if attached a.nd made an exhibit to the petition, hence, it is not what it claims to be, a negotiable promissory note. It declares on a negotiable promissory note, so it is unnecessary to discuss a nonnegotiable note. We think if we are right in this, that the court erred under the petition in…
1Opinion of the CourtG-ill, J.
This is a suit on a promissory note executed by defendant Jones to defendant Pain, who indorsed same to plaintiffs. There was judgment below for plaintiffs, and the indorser, Pain, appealed.
Pn™?p°£uiing: Fecifveh.value The sole question raised here relates to the sufficiency of the petition, the appellant contending that the same does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, because, it is said, the petition omits to state that the note was “expressed to be for value received,” which is a necessary element in the statutory requirements of a negotiable promissory note. R. S.…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- State ex rel. McKown v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1883
- First National Bank v. LandisMissouri Court of Appeals · 1889
- State ex rel. Cox v. PaceMissouri Court of Appeals · 1889