Duncan's Adm'r v. Duncan
| Decision Date | 31 January 1854 |
| Citation | 19 Mo. 368 |
| Parties | DUNCAN'S ADM'R, Appellant, v. DUNCAN, Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
1. A statement in a petition that the plaintiff sued in the capacity of administratrix was held a sufficient allegation that she was administratrix.
Appeal from Buchanan Circuit Court.
Vories, for appellant.
Gardenhire, for respondent.
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 setting up, 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 of 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.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Monks v. Bacon
...to understand the grounds upon which he was charged, the petition sufficiently advised him of that, and that was sufficient. Duncan's Adm'r v. Duncan, 19 Mo. 368; Pierre v. Heinrichoffen, 52 Mo. 333, 336. Facts necessarily implied, or necessarily inferable, need not be stated. Bird v. Cotto......
-
Duncan v. Frank
...Allred v. Bray, 41 Mo. 484; McMannus v. Lee, 43 Mo. 206. That the plaintiff “is the head of a family” is sufficiently pleaded.-- Duncan v. Duncan, 19 Mo. 368; Kemcayede v. Railroad Co., 45 Mo. 255; Bird v. Cotton, 51 Mo. 568; The State to use v. Hussey, 7 Mo. App. 597. The plaintiff was the......
-
Boyer v. Hamilton
...sufficient averment of such material fact. It is sufficient if from it a person of common understanding can know what is intended. Duncan v. Duncan, 19 Mo. 368; Jackson v. Railroad, 80 Mo. 147. F. M. ESTES, for the defendants in error: The draft, in this instance, not having been accepted b......
-
Dodson v. Scroggs
...be shown (State, etc., v. Matson, 38 Mo. 489)--are informally set up, and the defendant's liability does not appear at all. In Duncan's Adm'r v. Duncan, 19 Mo. 368, a description of the plaintiff, in the body of the petition, as administrator of the estate named, with a prayer for judgment ......