Merchants' Bank v. Ward's Adm'r
Cases that cite this one
2 later published cases cite this decision.
- Estate of Le Clerc (California Superior Court, San Francisco County 1887)
- Lenk Wine Co. v. Caspari (Mo. Ct. App. 1882)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the court.
1. It is objected that the bill of exceptions does not purport to contain all the evidence given on the trial in the court below. It does not so declare in formal words, but it is nevertheless sufficiently apparent, from the whole record, that such is the fact. It show’s what evidence was offered by the plaintiffs, and that the W’hole of it was ruled out, whereby the plaintiffs were driven to a non-suit.
2. It is objected that evidence was improperly excluded. The claim is founded on,decedent’s promissory note, the execution of which was admitted. It was duly allowed and classed in the Probate Court, whence an appeal was taken to the Circuit Court. On the trial there, the note was objected to and excluded on the ground that the affidavits thereto attached did not show a compliance with the provisions of the statute. (Gen. Stat. 1865, p. 502, §§ 12-14.) It concludes thus: “The estate of George E. Ward has been given credit for all judgments and offsets to which it is entitled on the demand above described, and the balance there claimed is justly due.” The objection is that, for aught that the affidavit asserts, the bank may be indebted to the estate on other accounts. The affidavit, according to its literal reading,
The District Court reversed the judgment of the Circuit Court, and its judgment is affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.