Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

7 Mo. 188

Grant v. Winn

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided September 15, 1841

Supreme Court of Missouri · decided 1841-09-15

1st. That the court erred in permitting the article of agreement to be read in evidence. 2d. That the court erred in overruling the motion of Grant, to set aside the finding of the court sitting as a jury, and grant a new trial. 3d. That the agreement was variant from the one set in the declaration.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1841-09-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently February 1929

3 state decisions

10184118501860187018801890190019101920decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Opinion of the Court by

Napton, Judge.

¶2The appellee sued Grant in assumpsit, upon a promissory note for $62 50. The declaration averred, that on the 25th day of August, 1840, at, &c., defendant made his certain agreement in writing, dated the day and year aforesaid, and thereby then and there promised to pay, &c. Upon the trial, the plaintiff offered in evidence a note, answering to the description of the declaration, except that it bore no date at all. The defendant below objected to the note, but the court allowed it to go to the jury. There was a verdict and judgment for plaintiff, motion for a new trial by defendant, and exceptions duly saved.

¶3instating the date of a promissory note, it must be truly stated ; bnd if the note bears no date, it may be alleged to have been made at any day ; and in that case, the words “bearing date,” or “dated,” being descriptive words, must be omitted. 1 Chitty’s Plead., 258. It is the opinion of *190this court that it was error to allow this note to go to the

¶4Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

/7/mo/188 · .json · Public domain