TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Westcott v. De Montreville

Westcott v. De Montreville, 30 Mo. 252 (1860)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of Missouri · State Highest Courts
Decided
March 15, 1860
Judges
Ewikg, Napton
Citations
30 Mo. 252
Headnotes
1. To enable a defendant to avail himself of a want of demand on the part of the plaintiff of a sum of money claimed to be due, the defendant should set up the matter in his answer, and accompany the same with a tender of the amount due; in which case, if the plaintiff will further prosecute his suit, and shall not recover a greater sum than is tendered, he shall pay all costs. (B. C. 1855, p. 448.)
Summary
Appeal from St. Louis Law Commissioner’s 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 — Ewikg

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

Ewikg, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The defendant being indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of thirty-eight dollars and seventy cents, gave him a currency check on the Mutual Savings Institution of St. Louis, which was paid in currency. Shortly after, thirty dollars of the amount was returned and left with defendant’s clerk. Defendant being informed of the return of the money directed his clerk to take it back to the plaintiff, and if he refused to receive it, to deposit it with the (same) Savings Institution. The money was not received by the plaintiff, he saying he could do nothing with the currency; whereupon it was deposited'by the clerk as he was directed, a bank book having been given by the defendant to the clerk for that purpose. There was a trial by the court, a jury being waived, and judgment for the plaintiff for thirty dollars. No declaration of law or instructions were asked by either party, and the record presents no point of law for our consideration.

It may be observed with regard to the question of a demand, to which some allusion is made in counsel’s brief, that even if this were a case in which a demand was necessary prior to the institution of the suit, the want of it is not available to a party unless he expressly sets it up by way of defence in the answer or replication, and accompanies it with a tender of *253 the amount due ; in which case, if the plaintiff will further prosecute his suit, and shall not recover a greater sum than is tendered, he shall pay all costs. (1 R. C. 1855, tit. Costs, § 34, p. 448.)

Judgment affirmed, with ten .per cent, damages;

Judge Napton absent.

How later courts describe this case

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

1869–1870: 11875–1876: 11887–1888: 11901–1902: 11903–1904: 118692026peak 1869 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Nanson v. Jacob93 Mo. 331 (1887)
  2. Reid v. Mullins43 Mo. 306 (1869)
  3. Antonelli v. Basile93 Mo. App. 138 (1902)
  4. Battel v. Crawford59 Mo. 215 (1875)
  5. Linn County v. Farmers' & Merchants' Bank75 S.W. 393 (Mo. 1903)

Most recent

  1. Linn County v. Farmers' & Merchants' Bank75 S.W. 393 (Mo. 1903)
  2. Antonelli v. Basile93 Mo. App. 138 (1902)
  3. Nanson v. Jacob93 Mo. 331 (1887)
  4. Battel v. Crawford59 Mo. 215 (1875)
  5. Reid v. Mullins43 Mo. 306 (1869)

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