Head v. Pitzer

Decision Date31 October 1825
Citation1 Mo. 548
PartiesHEAD v. PITZER.
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

APPEAL FROM ST. CHARLES CIRCUIT COURT

TOMPKINS, J.

Pitzer sued Head in the Circuit Court of St. Charles county, on a note purporting to be made by Head to one Nathaniel Cromwell, assigned to him by Cromwell, and had judgment. Head prays to be relieved of that judgment, because, he says, that some time in 1816 he had executed a note for about the same amount to John C. Cromwell, the consideration of which had failed, and which John C. Cromwell had promised to destroy; that he, Head, deceived by the similarity of names, and of the amount and date of the note, believed it to be the same he had executed to John C. Cromwell; knowing, too, that he had never made one to Nathan Cromwell, he does not tell what pleas he had put into the action, but says he knew he had no other defense than a failure of consideration. Pitzer, in his answer, states that Head pleaded payment, and that he, Cromwell, did not assign. No evidence appears on record. The court thinks that even on the statement of Head's case, in his own bill, there is no equity. Such negligence is incredible, and even were it credible, deserves not to be relieved in a court of chancery The judgment is affirmed with costs, and ten per cent. damages.

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Engler v. Knoblaugh
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • April 28, 1908
    ... ... party asking it shall show he was himself free from ... negligence in respect of the erroneous entry. [Head v ... Pitzer, 1 Mo. 548.] This condition is satisfied in the ... present case. It does not appear respondent was represented ... by an attorney ... ...
  • Engler v. Knoblaugh
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • April 28, 1908
    ...legal proceedings, is that the party asking it shall show he was himself free from negligence in respect of the erroneous entry. Head v. Pitzer, 1 Mo. 548. This condition is satisfied in the present case. It does not appear respondent was represented by an attorney in the proceedings to ope......
  • State ex rel. Bd. of Educ. v. Tiedemann
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • April 30, 1879
    ...to enjoin the sale. Wag. Stat., p. 1066; Kerr on Injunction, 205, 206, 298, 349, 406, 551; Duncan v. Gibson, 45 Mo. 352; Head v. Pitzer, 1 Mo. 548; Matson v. Field, 10 Mo. 100; George v. Tutt, 36 Mo. 141; Reed v. Hansard, 37 Mo. 199; March v. Bast, 41 Mo. 493; 2 Story Eq. Jur., (6 Ed.) 887;......
  • State v. Cook
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • October 31, 1825

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT