Ramsours v. Campbell

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Missouri
Writing for the CourtGAMBLE
Citation19 Mo. 358
Decision Date31 January 1854
PartiesRAMSOURS, Respondent, v. CAMPBELL, Appellant.

19 Mo. 358

RAMSOURS, Respondent,
v.
CAMPBELL, Appellant.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

January Term, 1854.


1. In an action on a receipt which stated that the defendant had received from the plaintiff a demand for collection, and that he would either collect the same or return the evidence of it, a petition is sufficient which states that the defendant executed the receipt, that he had collected the money and had failed to pay the same to plaintiff, although there is no express averment that the defendant promised to pay the money when collected, to the plaintiff, or that it belonged to the plaintiff.

[19 Mo. 359]

Appeal from Greene Circuit Court.

F. P. Wright, for appellant.

The petition does not show that the plaintiff is entitled to the money when collected, nor that the defendant promised to pay it to him. No contract or liability is shown.


GAMBLE, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

1. Ramsours held a receipt given to him by one Pegram, in which Pegram acknowledged to have received for collection a note for one hundred and fifty dollars, with a credit of fifty dollars, describing the note. Campbell obtained this receipt from Ramsours and gave him a receipt for it. In this receipt, Campbell acknowledged that the object in his getting the receipt was to collect the proceeds of the note from Pegram, and if not collected, the receipt was to be returned. This action was brought against Campbell on the receipt, and it was alleged in the petition that he had collected all the money, and that, with the exception of forty dollars, he had not paid it over, nor had he returned the receipt. Campbell answered, and his answer contained but a simple denial, and no other defence. He denied that he had ever received any more of the money than the forty dollars, which, it was admitted, he had paid over. There was a trial by jury, and the instructions given upon the only point in issue, were as favorable to the defendant as he could have asked. There is here no complaint of the instructions. A motion in arrest of judgment was made, and a motion for a new trial. The motion in arrest of judgment presents the only question which...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 practice notes
  • Hooper v. Hooper
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • January 31, 1854
    ...it charged her with no offense; it alleged no immoral act; it was but the expression of his determination to abandon her, without giving [19 Mo. 358]any decent pretext for the act. It was not an indignity rendering her condition intolerable. 3. So, the notice to persons not to credit her, c......
  • Bowling v. McFarland
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • October 31, 1866
    ...held by this court in regard to the forms adapted to the Code of 1849, and published [38 Mo. 467]therewith--Gramp v. Dunnivant, 23 Mo. 254; 19 Mo. 358, 368. The sufficiency of the averments of the petition according to the common law principles and forms of pleading, or their insufficiency,......
  • Garner v. McCullough
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • August 31, 1871
    ...to Clinton Circuit Court. H. M. & A. H. Vories, for plaintiff in error. The petition states a cause of action. (Ramsours v. Campbell, 19 Mo. 358.) J. M. Riley, for defendant in error. I. The petition does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. ( a) Plaintiff does no......
3 cases
  • Hooper v. Hooper
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • January 31, 1854
    ...it charged her with no offense; it alleged no immoral act; it was but the expression of his determination to abandon her, without giving [19 Mo. 358]any decent pretext for the act. It was not an indignity rendering her condition intolerable. 3. So, the notice to persons not to credit her, c......
  • Bowling v. McFarland
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • October 31, 1866
    ...held by this court in regard to the forms adapted to the Code of 1849, and published [38 Mo. 467]therewith--Gramp v. Dunnivant, 23 Mo. 254; 19 Mo. 358, 368. The sufficiency of the averments of the petition according to the common law principles and forms of pleading, or their insufficiency,......
  • Garner v. McCullough
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • August 31, 1871
    ...to Clinton Circuit Court. H. M. & A. H. Vories, for plaintiff in error. The petition states a cause of action. (Ramsours v. Campbell, 19 Mo. 358.) J. M. Riley, for defendant in error. I. The petition does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. ( a) Plaintiff does no......

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