Florida Memory will be down for scheduled maintenance today, October 31st, from 5 pm until 7 pm. We apologize for any inconvenience.


R.K. Call vs. Jeter

R.K. Call vs. Jeter

Lower Court

  • Leon County

Date

  • 1843

Box

  • 3

Folder

  • 33

Transcript

And for further pleas in this behalf said defendants protesting as aforesaid say actio non &c because they say said note is the property of the heirs and legal representatives of said Fauntleroy deceased and not the property of said plaintiff and that said plaintiff has no right to sustain an action thereon and this &c &c

G.K. Walker for dfts

Now on the same day, came the plaintiff by his attorney and filed his replication to the 2[nd] pleas and his replication to the 3[rd] plea which demurrer and replication are in the following words and figures. And this plff says the matters and things contained in defendants second pleas are insufficient in law to bar his said action & this he is ready to verify &c

And for replication to the 3[rd] plea of said defendant he says preclude non because he says that the consideration of said note was not the sum of fourteen thousand dollars in Bills of the Union Bank of Florida of the value of sixty cents on the dollar at that time nor was it contracted or agreed as set forth in said plea that bills of similar value were to be repaid, nor had said plaintiff notice of such agreement of such was made before or at the time he made such note and of this he puts himself upon the country.

And or the same day came the plaintiff by his attorney and filed his demurrer to the 5[th] plea which was in the words and figures following,

And the said plaintiff saith preclude non as to the fifth plea because he says that the matters and things in said plea are insufficient in law & present no valid defense to his action in this behalf and this he is ready to verify &c

And on the same day came the plaintiff by