Morris v. First State Bank of Dallas

(after stating the facts as above). In support of his first assignment Morris insists that the allegations in Sewell’s answer set out in the statement above and forming the basis of his cross-action were insufficient, because indefinite and uncertain, in that it did not appear therefrom whether the 1 per cent, of the face of the checks deducted by Morris when he cashed them was a charge by him of “interest” or “exchange.” The basis of the contention is the fact that the pleader designated the 1 per cent, deducted as “interest” or “exchange.” The argument seems to be that, if the 1 per cent,…