TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Duncan's Adm'r v. Duncan

Duncan's Adm'r v. Duncan, 19 Mo. 368 (1854)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of Missouri · State Highest Courts
Decided
January 15, 1854
Judges
Gamble
Citations
19 Mo. 368
Headnotes
1. A statement in a petition that the plaintiff sued in the capacity of administratrix was held a sufficient allegation that she was administratrix.
Summary
Appeal from Buchanan 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 — Gamble

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

Gamble, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court.

1. The plaintiff, styling herself in the petition, administratrix of all and singular, the goods, chattels and effects of Robert Duncan, deceased, commenced her civil action against the defendant, upon a note alleged to have been made by the defendant to the intestate, and upon an account due from the defendant to the intestate, praying judgment as administratrix. The defendant answered, denying a part of the indebtedness, and *369 setting np, as an off-set, a demand which he held upon the intestate. There was a replication to the off-set. At the trial, the plaintiff offered in evidence the record o£ her letters of administration upon the estate of the intestate, which was rejected. She then offered in evidence the note made by the defendant to the intestate, which was rejected. The rejection of the evidence is the ground of complaint here. The ground of the rejection was, that the petition did not sufficiently allege that she was administratrix. The petition stating the character in which the plaintiff sued (as administratrix) and the indebtedness to her intestate, and praying judgment as administratrix for the debt, is a sufficient statement of the cause of action, and of her right to sue, “in such manner as to enable a person of common understanding to know what is intended.” Code, art. 6, sec. 1. And being such statement, the plaintiff was entitled to prove it, by giving her letters in evidence. The judgment is, with the concurrence of the other judges, reversed, and the cause remanded.

How later courts describe this case

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

1871–1872: 11883–1884: 118712026peak 1871 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Eans' Adm'r v. Exchange Bank79 Mo. 182 (1883)
  2. Dodson v. Scroggs47 Mo. 285 (1871)

Most recent

  1. Eans' Adm'r v. Exchange Bank79 Mo. 182 (1883)
  2. Dodson v. Scroggs47 Mo. 285 (1871)

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