William Morrison v. Francois Benoit
View original image: Page  003
[missing figure]

District of Saint LouisDistrict of Saint LouisSs..

WilliamWilliam Morrison MorrisonWilliam Morrison complains of Francios
M Benoit for this, that whereas one John Edgar, by the name
of J Edgar on the twenty fifth day of May, in the year one thou-sand eight hundred and four at Kaskaskias, in the IndianaIndiana
Territory,for wit at the district of Saint LouisSt Louis, and within the
Jurisdiction of this Court, according to the use and custom of
merchants, made his certain bill of exchange hearing date
the same day and year aforesaid his own hand being thereto
subscribed by the name of J. Edgar in favor of the plaintiff
directed to the defendant by the name of M. Benoit
by which said Bill the said Edger requested the said
Defendant by the name of M Benoit as aforesaid to pay to the
plaintiff, or his order, three hundred and seventy eight dollars
in merchantable peltries, to wit merchantable shaved
deer skins at the rate of the livres to the dollar, and obey
his humble servant. Signet J Edgar, which said bill was there
afterwards on the seventh day of June, in the year last aforesaid
presented to the said Defendant who accepted the same
and then & there promised the plaintiff to pay him the
said sum of three hundred and twenty eight dollars, on
request, agreeably to the and effect of said Bill-yet
the said Defendant though often requested
refused and still refuses the same sum or any part thereof
to pay to the plaintiff and also for that the defendant on the seventh day of June in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and four, at the district SaintSt Louis
LouisSt Louis, was indebted to the plaintiff in one further sum
of three hundred and thirty dollars, current money
of the United StatesUnited States for so much money by the plaintiff
before out and expended for the defendant
be his request, in consideration whereof, the said
Defendant then and there assumed upon himself and
by the plaintiff faithfully promised to pay him the
said sum of money on request-

Yet the said Defendant though often requested
hath refuses and still refused the same sum of money
to the said plaintiff or either of them to pay to his damage
Five Hundred Dollars, wherefore ,

Mears for Plt