TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Snowden v. McDaniel

Snowden v. McDaniel, 7 Mo. 313 (1842)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of Missouri · State Highest Courts
Decided
April 15, 1842
Citations
7 Mo. 313
Headnotes
The plea of non est factum, although not verified by affidavit, is agood plea to an action on a sealed instrument. The omission of tire . affidavit merely relieves the plaintiff from the necessity of proving the execution of the instrument; all other advantages of which a party can avail himself under that plea, are still open to him. (See Bates v Hinton, 4, Mo. E. 78; Payne v. Shell, ib. 238.) " 2. When a non-resident commences a suit, without giving security for costs, he may be permitted to file a bond for costs, after a motion is made to dismiss for want of such security. (See Gov. of Mo. v. Rector, 1, Mo. R; p. 638; Posey v. Buckner, 3, Mo, R. 604.) The plea of non c,sl facC notverifiedby g®o¿vlpiea to-an action on a sealed mstrument. The th^SSaffidavi°f merely re-from, the necessity of proving the' execution- of ¡^ent •^ail" other advan-a^party^can ‘"A*1 himself under that plea, are- stilt (^® Bates*1 vl Hinton 4 Mo. E. 78;JPayne 234.)ne11’ lb’ When a nonresident commences a suit without giving security for costs, he may be permitted to file a bond for costs, after a motion is made to dismiss for want of such security. (See .Gov-of Mo. v. Kector, 1, Mo R. p. 638.) Posey v. Buckner,- 3, Mo. E. 604.)
Summary
Appeal from the Carroll Circuit Court.

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

Opinion of the Court

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

Opinion of the Court, delivered by.

Scott, Judge..

McDaniel sued Snowden by petition in debt on- a bond; judgment was rendered against Snowrden,andhe has brought the cause here by appeal. One of the errors assigned, is, that the court overruled the plea of non est factum, filed by Snowden. It has been repeatedly held, that the plea of non est factum, although not verified by affidavit, is a good plea to an action on a sealed instrument;, the omission of tihe affidavit, merely relieves the plaintiff from, the necessity of ... . ... , , proving the execution ot the instrument; all other advan-a party can avail himself under that plea, The practice o-f the circuit court, in permitting motions to strike out pleas, to be substituted for demurrers, ought not to be tolerated. It is not conceived , ... on what principle such a practice is founded. In this case, the plea of non est factum, was disposed of by motion, an(l no bill of exceptions having been taken to the action of the court below, according to the practice of this court, the error cannot be examined. tages, of which are still open to- him.

It is, also, assigned for error, that the court below refused to dismiss the suit, because the plaintiff was a non-resident, *314 an<^ ^ n0Í ^ven security J°r costs ^e^ore commencing his The court permitted a bond for costs, to be filed after the motion to dismiss was made, and then overruled the tno-^011, ^ ^as ^een determined by this court, that when a non-resident commences a suit without giving security for costs, he may be permitted to file a bond for costs after a mo-^011 made. Posey v. Buckner, 3d. vol. Mo. R. 604.

When a nonresident commences a suit without giving security for costs, he may be permitted to file a bond for costs, after a motion is made to dismiss for want of such security. (See .Gov-of Mo. v. Kector, 1, Mo R. p. 638.) Posey v. Buckner,- 3, Mo. E. 604.)

Judgment affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

1845–1846: 11881–1882: 11887–1888: 118452026peak 1845 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Zervis v. Unnerstall29 Mo. App. 474 (1888)
  2. Medlin v. Brooks9 Mo. 105 (1845)
  3. Shuttleworth v. Dunlop34 N.J. Eq. 488 (1881)

Most recent

  1. Zervis v. Unnerstall29 Mo. App. 474 (1888)
  2. Shuttleworth v. Dunlop34 N.J. Eq. 488 (1881)
  3. Medlin v. Brooks9 Mo. 105 (1845)

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