Case ID: mo_6/html/0059-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Ed-vard'. Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Pemberton v. Staples
    Fraud constitutes a good defence in law as in equity, and a general allegation of fraud in a plea, without specifying the particulars, is sufficient.
    Error to Lewis Circuit Court.
    The following opinion was delivered at the August term of the year 1839, and the cause, on motion of the plaintiff, in error, being kept under advisement, and the two judges who were then on the bench, being still of opinion that its former judgment was correct, now direct their opinions to be transcribed for publication.
    Wright & Anderson' for Plaintiff.
    The circuit court committed palpable and manifest error in sustaining the de-raurrer of the plaintiff below to the defendants plea of fraud, and the conn :el cite, in support of their position, 1 Chitty pi. 553. I vol. I). O. L. Montgomery vs Tipton, page 446.
    _ , Fraud con-«¿¡tutes a fn lawas"well ns in equity, cifying the B Insufficient
    Allen for defendant.
    There is no ert or committed by tha court below, see 3rd Chitty’s pleading,, and precedents and authoi itiow there cited in note p. 963.
   Opinion of the court delivered by

Ed-vard'. Judge.

Staple-, sued Pemberton by petition in iel>t in the Lewis circuit cofivi. Pemberton pleaded uon e.-.t -actum and fraud generally. Staples replied to the plea of non e it factum, and demurred to the plea of fraud. The court sustained the demurrer an I the plaintiff had judgment.

The j laiuliffio error insists that the circuit court erred in su .trining the durmrrer to the plea of fraud, and cites the care of Montgomery vs. Tipton 1 Mo. Dec. 446. In the . ° ‘ , . , case Lijo; e rUed, the court held that fraud con-txtutcd a good ^encti ’rj 'ilw aH v;tí'! as hi equity/and that a general alie-gatiou of fraud, without specifying the particulars; was suf-There may Lave been some conflict in the decisions su5j(,cl, but we have not the authorities to ascertain how far this extends; 3 Chitty, 963, notes M, & 1. As at Presea!; advised, there seems to be no objection to the law as settled in the case of Montgomery and Tipton. The other judges concurríag, this cause is reversed and remanded.