Case ID: morris_1/html/0429-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mason, Chief Justice.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

John Carothers, et al., plaintiffs in error vs. William Green, defendant in error.
    
      Error to Johnson.
    
    Where a true copy of the note sued upon is appended to the declaration, a variance in the description in setting out the same cannot be taken advantage of upon a writ of error.
    This was an action of assumpsit on a note for two hundred dollars, brought by Green against John, William, James, and H. Carothers. The note was payable to E. J. Kidder, or bearer. Judgment was rendered at January term, 1843, for tiro plaintiffs, for $282.
    On the trial the defendants objected to the introduction of the note on account of a variance between said note and the note described in tho declaration, which objection was overruled by tho court and the note admitted as evidence in support of the plaintiffs special count. To which the defendants excepted.
    John Carothers sued out his writ of error from this court.
    Hastings, for plaintiffs in error.
    Lowe, for defendant in error.
   Per Curiam,

Mason, Chief Justice.

Although séveral eirors are assigned in this case, only one has been' insisted on in the argument. It ¡3 urged that the note ought not to have been received in evidence on account of a variance. There is no variance between the note and the copy appended to the declaration, and we have often held that where such is the case no objection can be made on the trial on account of a variance between the note described in the declaration and that offered in evidence.

Judgment affirmed.