Orme v. Shephard

Decision Date30 September 1842
Citation7 Mo. 606
PartiesORME v. SHEPHARD.
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

APPEAL FROM THE ST. LOUIS COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

DARBY and KNOX, for Appellant.

SCOTT, J.

This was a suit by petition in debt, brought by Shephard against Orme, in which Shephard obtained judgment, from which Orme appealed to this court. On the trial, Shephard offered in evidence the note sued on, which was signed, as the bill of exceptions shows, A. C. Orme, and the petition was against Augustus E. Orme. The reading of the note was objected to on the ground of variance. The objection was overruled, and the note read in evidence.

The appellant, to sustain his objection to the admissibility of the note, and to show its variance from the petition, has relied on the case of King v. Clark, 7 Mo. R. 267. In that case the court held that a mistake in the middle letter between the christian and surname was no ground of variance; that it was no part of the name, and that the law knows of but one christian name, and the mistake of the middle letter of the name in that case was material, because the party had made it so by a descriptive averment. In the case of Smith v. Ross and Strong, decided at the last term of this court, it was held, the omission of the middle letter between the christian and surname was no variance. If the middle letter is no part of the name, as was held in Talmadge v. Franklin, 5 Johns. 84, its omission or a mistake in it, cannot be material.(a) Judgment affirmed.

(a). See Fenton v. Perkins, 1 Mo. R. 106, and note.

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • White v. Himmelberger-Harrison Lumber Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • February 6, 1912
    ... ... the name. Its absence or misrecital does not affect the ... question of identity one way or the other. Orme v ... Shephard, 7 Mo. 606; State v. Martin, 10 Mo ... 391; Phillips v. Evans, 64 Mo. 23; Beckner v ... McLain, 107 Mo. 288; Lucas v ... ...
  • Corrigan v. Schmidt
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • January 9, 1895
    ...(1) A middle letter is no part of a name, and its omission is not a misnomer or variance. ""Smith v. Ross, 7 Mo. 463; ""Orme v. Shephard, 7 Mo. 606; ""Tallmadge v. Franklin, 5 Johns. ""Keene v. Mead, 3 Pet. S.Ct. U.S., p. 1. (2) When personal service is had on a defendant, jurisdiction is o......
  • Lucas v. Current River Land & Cattle Company
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • February 15, 1905
    ... ... Its omission in any matter amounts to nothing. Talmadge ... v. Franklin, 5 Johns. 84; Orme v. Shepherd, 7 ... Mo. 606; State v. Martin, 10 Mo. 391; Beckner v ... McLain, 107 Mo. 288. The insertion or omission of the ... middle letter of ... ...
  • Morgan v. Owen
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • February 22, 1906
    ... ... 288; Gumm v. Hubbard, 97 Mo. 319; Elting v ... Gould, 96 Mo. 541; State ex rel. v. Williams, ... 95 Mo. 161; Skelton v. Sackett, 91 Mo. 377; Orme ... v. Shephard, 7 Mo. 606; Smith v. Ross, 7 Mo ... 463; Steinmann v. Strimple, 29 Mo.App. 484; ... Kreitz v. Behrensmeyer, 17 N.E. 249; Wimmer ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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