for a given time, if services were satisfactory, an allegation that plaintiff was discharged "without any reasonable cause whatever" is sufficient on demurrer.) Fuld v. Kahn, 4 Misc., 600; 54 State Rep., 134 ; 24 N. Y. Supp., 558. (In an action for the agreed compensation, on failure to prove the express contract, defendant cannot recover the value of the services without amendment.) American Encaustic Tiling Co. v. Reich, 34 State Rep., 64; s. c. 11 N. Y. Supp., 776; aff'd in 35 State Rep., 579; 12 N. Y. Supp., 927. (Plaintiff may claim both the agreed compensation and the value of his services, and will not be required to elect between them at the trial.) Miller v. Schumann, 19 N. Y. Supp., 213. (Complaint alleging that plaintiff agreed to pay defendant for services in putting them in communication with manufacturers, "so that" that they might procure agencies for the manufacturer's goods, dismissed for failing to allege that defendants did procure the agencies.) Griffin v. Jackson, 36 State Rep.,

110; s. c. 13 N. Y. Supp., 321. (To sustain a judgment by default in the . justice's court, a complaint alleging" that the plaintiffs are indebted to defendant in the sum of $13.25, being for balance due to him from plaintiffs for work and labor done and performed at their request," etc., sufficiently shows that the debt was payable.) Tracy v. Tracy, 59 Hun, 1; s. c. 35 State Rep., 67; 12 N. Y. Supp., 665. (In an action for services, complaint must allege that defendant has not been paid for his services, but a count alleging that "plaintiff is indebted to this defendant," followed by the particulars of the indebtedness, is sufficient.) North Carolina.-Stokes v. Taylor, 104 N. C., 394; s. c. 10 S. E. Rep., 566. (Under a complaint alleging that defendant is indebted to plaintiff for $1,440 "for services performed as a clerk in defendant's store at $20 per month," giving period of employment, plaintiff may prove services either under special contract or on quantum meruit.) S. P., Roberts v. P. A. Demens Wood Working Co., 111 N. C., 432; s. c. 16 S. E. Rep., 415; Fulks v. Mack, 108 N. C., 601; s. c. 13 S. E. Rep., 92. South Dakota.-Busta v. Wardall, 3 S. D., 248; s. c. 52 N. W Rep., 418. (Complaint alleging that defendant is indebted to plaintiff in the sum of $200 for work and labor performed by him for defendant during the year 1888, at defendant's request, for which work and labor said defendant agreed to pay plaintiff the sum of $200, but has not paid said sum or any part thereof, is sufficient to sustain a judgment by default, though it would have been subject to a motion to be made more definite and certain.) Wisconsin.-Beers v. Kuehn, 84 Wis., 33; s. c. 54 N. W. Rep., 109. (Where plaintiff counts on the express contract and also for the reasonable value of the work, but blends the two causes of action by asking judgment as if but one was stated, defendant having gone to trial without objection, and the evidence as to the express contract being conflicting, it is error to charge that the plaintiff cannot recover on a quantum meruit.) Waterman v. Waterman, 81 Wis., 17; s. c. 50 N. W. Rep., 668. (Plaintiff may count on both quantum meruit and express contract.) La Coursier v. Russell, 82 Wis., 265; s. c. 52 N. W. Rep., 176. (One wrongfully discharged may bring an action upon the contract for an instalment of wages or the proportion thereof due at the time of the discharge, and is not obliged to resort to a quantum meruit.)

COMPLAINTS IN ACTIONS ON BILLS, NOTES,

CHECKS, ETC.

[Principal Case, p. 58, this Vol.]

(1) Execution or indorsement by defendant.

(2) The note, etc.; its contents, etc.

(3) Consideration.

(4) Maturity.

(5) Plaintiff's ownership.

(6) Acceptance, presentment, protest, notice, etc.

(7) Non-payment.

(1) Execution or indorsement by defendant.

note

California. Smith v. Waite, 103 Cal., 372; s. c. 37 Pac. Rep., 232. (Delivery imported from allegation that defendant "duly made and setting out copy thereof.) Goetz v. Goldbaum, Cal., 1894, 37 Pac. Rep., 646. (Where copy of note set forth in complaint purported to be signed by defendant "per Wm. G.," Held, that complaint was not demurrable for failing to allege who Wm. G. was, or his authority to act for defendant.) Connecticut.-Lord v. Russell, 64 Conn., 86; 29 Atl. Rep., 242. (Allegation that defendant by his note promised to pay plaintiff a specified sum, at a place and time stated; that the note is now the property of plaintiff, and making a copy of the note a part of the pleading, sufficiently shows execution and delivery of note.) Salomon v. Hopkins, 61 Conn., 47; s. c. 23 Atl. Rep., 716. (Where complaint alleged a promise by three defendants to pay the note sued on, and a copy of the note which formed a part of the pleading was signed by “A. J. & J. H. Hopkins," held, that evidence was admissible to show that the third defendant, J. M. Hopkins, adopted the signature.) Idaho.-Elbring v. Mullen, Idaho, 1894, 38 Pac. Rep., 404. (Complaint alleging that defendant made and delivered note, and setting out a copy, sufficiently shows execution and delivery thereof.) Rams v. Bohm, Ind. App., 1893, 33 N. E. Rep., 218. (Complaint alleging defendants were partners doing business under a firm name, and setting out a copy of a note signed with the firm name, sufficiently connects defendants with the note and shows that it was executed by them as partners.) Bell v. Mansfield, Ky., 1890, 13 S. W. Rep., 838. (Allegation that defendant by his promissory note herewith filed, agreed and promised to pay, etc., sufficiently shows execution and delivery of the note.) Massachusetts.-Foster v. Leach, 160 Mass., 418; s. c. 36 N. E. Rep., 69. (In an action against indorsers, a declaration alleging a separate contract of indorsement, will not be regarded as charging a joint liability because it concludes with an averment that defendants owe plaintiff the amount of the note.) Missouri.-First National Bank v. Landis, 34 Mo. App., 433. (Allegation that defendant, A., made his promissory note to the order of plaintiff, and that the defendant, B., indorsed the same and thereby became a maker of the note with A., is

sufficient to charge both A. and B. with the payment of the note, though at common law an express allegation of a promise to pay on the part of both defendants would have been necessary.) Montana.-Schuttler v. v. King, 13 Mont., 226; s. c. 33 Pac. Rep., 938. (Complaint alleging the execution and delivery of a note by defendant to plaintiff for a specified sum, etc., is not bad on demurrer because it fails to expressly allege that defendant promised to pay plaintiff the amount of the note.) New York.-Casco Nat'l Bank v. Clark, 139 N. Y., 307. (An action may be maintained against persons signing a note, individually, though the words "prest." and "treas." are placed after their signatures respectively, and a corporate name is printed on the margin of the note, if plaintiff purchased the note without knowledge that it was only intended to bind the corporation.) S. P., Sykes v. Temple, 69 Hun, 448. Hand v. Society for Savings, 44 State Rep., 785; s. c. 18 N. Y. Supp., 157. (Under a complaint alleging the making of the contract by the defendant corporation, and setting forth a copy of a note signed by “S. H. M., Prest.," evidence is admissible to show that the person who signed the note was president of the defendant, and that he was authorized to execute it in its behalf.) First National Bank of Oxford v. Turner, 24 N. Y. Supp., 793. (Complaint held bad on demurrer, which alleged that C. T. was agent of defendant, and as such agent made "his" promissory note, and setting out a note signed by "C. T., Agt.") Vogle v. Kirby, 15 Civ. Pro. R., 332; s. c. 4 N. Y. Supp., 99; 18 State Rep., 287. (Complaint is bad on demurrer, which alleges that the action is brought on an instrument for the payment of money only and setting forth a copy, without alleging that it was made by defendant.) Edison General Electric Co. v. Zebley, 72 Hun, 166; s. c. 55 State Rep., 62; 25 N. Y. Supp., 389. (In an action by payee to charge one who indorsed the note with liability thereon, facts must be alleged to overcome the presumption that defendant is the second indorser); and see S. P., Jaffray v. Krauss, 79 Hun, 449; s. c. 61 State Rep., 254; 29 N. Y. Supp., 987; Smith v. Storm, 6 Misc., 627; s. c. 58 State Rep., 573; 27 N. Y. Supp., 143; McPhillips v. Jones, 26 N. Y. Supp., 101; N. Y. Security & Trust Co. v. Storm, 81 Hun, 33; s. c. 62 State Rep., 539; 30 N. Y. Supp., 605. Oregon.-Deering v. Creighton, 19 Ore., 118; s. c. 24 Pac. Rep., 198. (Where it is sought to charge an indorser as a joint maker the complaint must state facts to show his liability as such.) South Carolina.-Watson v. Barr, 37 S. C., 463; s. c. 16 S. E. Rep., 188. (Complaint held sufficient to charge both defendants as makers of the nonnegotiable instrument sued on, which alleged that the instrument was executed by both defendants and delivered to plaintiffs, and sets forth a copy of the instrument which appears to be subscribed by one of the defendants and indorsed by the other.) South Dakota.-Scott v. Esterbooks, S. D., 1894, 60 N. W. Rep., 850. (Form of complaint setting forth a copy of note approved.) Texas.--Behrens v. Dignawity, 4 Tex. Civ. App., 201; s. c. 23 S. W. Rep., 288. (Execution of note sufficiently averred, in absence of exception, where it was alleged that defendant was indebted to plaintiff in a specified sum according to the terms of a promissory note, setting out a copy.)

(2) The note, etc.; its contents, etc.

California.-Ward v. Clay, 82 Cal., 502; s. c. 23 Pac. Rep., 50. (Note annexed as an exhibit cannot be considered on demurrer in support of the complaint.) Brown . Weldon, 71 Cal., 393; s. c. 12 Pac. Rep., 280. (Where the note is set out, an allegation of defendant's promise to pay is unnecessary.) Colorado.-Salazar v. Taylor, 18 Colo., 538; s. c. 33 Pac. Rep., 369. (Allegation of promise by defendant under his hand is equivalent to an allegation of a promise in writing.) Georgia.—Simpson v. Earle, 87 Ga., 215; s. c. 13 S. E. Rep., 446. (Though it appears on the face of the note set forth that it was given for rent, it is not necessary to allege that the relation of landlord and tenant existed.) Indiana.--Jaqua v. Woodbury, 3 Ind. App., 289; s. c. 29 N. E. Rep., 573. (Failure to aver that the note was made payable to plaintiff is immaterial, where the note is made a part of the complaint.) Blackwell v. Pendergast, 132 Ind., 550; s. c. 32 N. E. Rep., 319. (Complaint falsely alleging that a copy of note has been filed is bad on demurrer.) Gish v. Gish, 7 Ind. App., 704; s. c. 34 N. E. Rep., 305. (Reference to a copy of the note is sufficient, where after describing the note it is alleged that a copy is herewith filed, and the allegation is immediately followed by a copy of the note marked as an exhibit.) Maryland.--McCann v. Preston, 77 Md., 30; s. c. 28 Atl. Rep., 1102. (Note admissible in evidence under a common count for money lent.) Massachusetts.-Burr v. Jay, 151 Mass., 295; s. c. 23 N. E. Rep., 838. (A declaration on a written promise to pay a sum of money need not set forth an indorsement thereon acknowledging that plaintiff had received a bond as collateral security.) Michigan.--Shaw . Fortine, 98 Mich., 254; s. c. 57 N. W. Rep., 128. (How. Ann. Stat., 6871, providing that in actions on promissory notes, in shall be sufficient in the declaration to designate any person named in the note by the same initials as used therein, applies to a payee in an action by him.) Minnesota.--Almach v. Downey, 45 Minn., 460; s. c., 48 N. W. Rep., 197. (Mistake in the date of note should be set out in pleading, but where evidence thereof is received without objection in absence of such allegaation, the pleading may be amended.) Missouri.—Barrows v. Million, 43 Mo. App., 79. (Allegation of note payable to plaintiff or order, and proof of a note payable to plaintiff or bearer, held an immaterial variance.) Nebraska. - Barnes v. Van Keuren, 31 Neb., 165; s. c. 47 N. W. Rep., 848. (Where note is pleaded by setting forth a copy, it is not necessary to attach a copy thereof to the pleading as an exhibit.) New York.-Denick v. Hubbard, 36 Hun, 188. (Held, no variance, though the proof showed that the note sued on was ante-dated.) Oklahoma.-First National Bank of Arkansas City v. Jones, Okla., 1895, 37 Pac. Rep., 824. (Demurrer sustained for variance between the pleading and the note filed as an exhibit) Oregon.-Sperry v. Lewis, 19 Ore., 250; 23 Pac. Rep., 961. (Though a contract is written on the same paper as the note sued on, by which the maker agrees to deliver his wool clip for a year to payee as security for the note with a provision that the payee should sell the wool on commission, complaint need not allege that defendant failed to deliver the wool, or that it was insufficient to pay the debt.) United

States.--Drake v. Found Treasure Min. Co., 53 Fed. Rep., 474. (Complaint on a note may be amended so as to change date, amount, time of payment, or names of parties, provided the identity of the note sued on is preserved.) Washington.-Singer Manuf. Co. v. Hatley, 3 Wash. Tr., 198; s. c. 21 Pac. Rep., 384. (In an action on a note given for the purchase money of a machine, and containing a stipulation that the machine should remain the property of the plaintiff until the note was paid, the complaint is sufficient if it sets forth a copy of the note, and alleges the sale and delivery of the machine in consideration thereof, and its acceptance and retention by defendant, and his refusal to pay the note.) (3) Consideration.

California.-Poirier v. Gravel, 88 Cal., 79; s. c. 25 Pac. Rep., 962. (In an action on a note or other written instrument, it is unnecessary to aver consideration.) Indiana.-Petree v. Fielder, 3 Ind. App, 127; s. c. 29 N. E. Rep., 271. (Complaint is not demurrable for failure to allege consideration, if the note set forth by its terms states that it was for value received.) Maine.—Bartlett v. Leathers, 84 Me., 241; s. c. 24 Atl. Rep., 842. (Defendant's indorsement of note to plaintiff for value is sufficiently averred by an allegation that defendant became liable, and in consideration thereof promised to pay plaintiff the note.) Minnesota.-Elmquist v. Markoe, 39 Minn., 494; s. c. 40 N. W. Rep., 825. (Consideration is sufficiently pleaded, if the copy of the note set out is in terms for value received.) New York.--Mt. Morris Bank v. Lawson, 7 Misc., 228; s. c. 27 N. Y. Supp., 272. (Where the note set out in complaint states that it was given for a valuable consideration no allegation of consideration is necessary.) Guggenheim v. Goldberger, 58 State Rep., 34; s. c. 27 N. Y. Supp., 422. (In an action by indorsee against the maker and indorser of a check, defendant's failure to deny the allegation in the complaint that the check was transferred to plaintiff for value is not an admission thereof, as such averment is unnecessary in the complaint.) Beaudrias v. Walck, 17 N. Y. Supp., 716; s. c. 45 State Rep., 7. (Where the notes set out in complaint state that they were given in consideration of certain articles the title of which should not pass to the maker until the notes were paid, but in no way abridging the rights of payee, held, that it was not necessary for plaintiff to allege the sale and delivery of the article referred to in notes.) West Virginia.—McClain v. Lowther, 35 W. Va., 297; s. c. 13 S. E. Rep., 1003. (In an action between payee and drawer of a check, held, that the giving of the check implied an indebtedness, and consideration need not be pleaded.)

(4) Maturity.

Alabama.-Freider v. Leinkauff, 92 Ala., 469; s. c. 8 So. Rep., 758. (Allegation that plaintiffs previous to suit offered to discount the note, and that defendant accepted the offer, is insufficient to show that the date of maturity was changed.) Indiana.-Taylor v. Hearn, 131 Ind., 537; s. c. 31 N. E. Rep., 201. (If the note filed as an exhibit with the complaint appears to have been passed due when the suit was brought, an express