TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Pemberton v. Staples

Pemberton v. Staples, 6 Mo. 59 (1839)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Missouri · State Highest Courts
Decided
October 15, 1839
Judges
Vard
Citations
6 Mo. 59
Headnotes
Fraud constitutes a good defence in law as in equity, and a general allegation of fraud in a plea, without specifying the particulars, is sufficient. _ , Fraud con-«¿¡tutes a fn lawas"well ns in equity, cifying the B Insufficient
Summary
Error to Lewis Circuit Court. The following opinion was delivered at the August term of the year 1839, and the cause, on motion of the plaintiff, in error, being kept under advisement, and the two judges who were then on the bench, being still of opinion that its former judgment was correct, now direct their opinions to be transcribed for publication. The circuit court committed palpable and manifest error in sustaining the de-raurrer of the plaintiff below to the defendants plea of fraud, and the conn :el cite, in support of their position, 1 Chitty pi. 553. I vol. I). O. L. Montgomery vs Tipton, page 446. There is no ert or committed by tha court below, see 3rd Chitty’s pleading,, and precedents and authoi itiow there cited in note p. 963.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Vard

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Opinion of the court delivered by Ed-vard'. Judge.

Staple-, sued Pemberton by petition in iel>t in the Lewis circuit cofivi. Pemberton pleaded uon e.-.t -actum and fraud generally. Staples replied to the plea of non e it factum, and demurred to the plea of fraud. The court sustained the demurrer an I the plaintiff had judgment.

The j laiuliffio error insists that the circuit court erred in su .trining the durmrrer to the plea of fraud, and cites the care of Montgomery vs. Tipton 1 Mo. Dec. 446. In the . ° ‘ , . , case Lijo; e rUed, the court held that fraud con-txtutcd a good ^encti ’rj 'ilw aH v;tí'! as hi equity/and that a general alie-gatiou of fraud, without specifying the particulars; was suf-There may Lave been some conflict in the decisions su5j(,cl, but we have not the authorities to ascertain how far this extends; 3 Chitty, 963, notes M, & 1. As at Presea!; advised, there seems to be no objection to the law as settled in the case of Montgomery and Tipton. The other judges concurríag, this cause is reversed and remanded.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1842–1843: 11854–1855: 11870–1871: 11888–1889: 11894–1895: 118422026peak 1842 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Nichols v. Stevens123 Mo. 96 (1894)
  2. Reed v. Bott100 Mo. 62 (1889) · Dissent
  3. Giles v. Williams3 Ala. 316 (1842)
  4. Fox v. Webster46 Mo. 181 (1870)
  5. Edgell v. Sigerson20 Mo. 494 (1855)

Most recent

  1. Nichols v. Stevens123 Mo. 96 (1894)
  2. Reed v. Bott100 Mo. 62 (1889) · Dissent
  3. Fox v. Webster46 Mo. 181 (1870)
  4. Edgell v. Sigerson20 Mo. 494 (1855)
  5. Giles v. Williams3 Ala. 316 (1842)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list