Grant v. Winn

In stating the dato of a promissory noto it must be truly stated, and if the note bears no date, it may be alleged to have been made at any day ; andin thatcase, the words “bearing date,” or “dated,” being descriptive words, must bo omitted. statingthe date of a pro-¡¿must be°tG truly ^stated, note beared date, it may be alleged to have been made at any day ; and in that case, the words “bearing dale,” or “ dated,” being descriptive words, must he omitted.

Appeal from the Clay Circuit Court. 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. See 4 Starlrie, 1598-9 ; 1589 1st ty’s Pleadings. 1st. That there is no material variance between the writing as declared on, and the writing as given in evidence, the substance of the allegation being that the appellant promised to pay on the 25th Dec. 1840. See Bell and Craig v. Scott, 3d vol. Mo. Rep. 212 ; Martin v. Miller, 3d vol. Mo. Reps. 135. 2d. That profert having been made, there ought to have been a dem urrer, and too late on the trial. 3d. The whole record shows the finding and judgment to have been right, and this court will not disturb it. 4th. The bill of exceptions only shows that the appellant objected to the introduction of the agreement, and does not show exception saved ; objection and exception are not the same.