John O'Fallon et. al. v. John T. Nash
View original image: Page  001
[missing figure]

County ofCounty of St Louis St. LouisCircuit Court
St. LouisCounty of St Louis Circuit CourtCircuit Court
June Term 1823

John O'FallonJohn O'Fallon . William ClarkWilliam Clark
BernardBernard Pratte PratteBernard Pratte August Choteau & RobertRobert Wash
WashRobert Wash by their Attorney complain of John F. Nash
of a plea of Trespass on the case upon promises
For that whereas heretofore to wit on the eleventh day of February in the year one thousand eight hundred & twenty two at the county aforesaid the said John
F Nash made his certain note in writing commonly
called a promissory note bearing date the day and year
aforesaid and now to the Court shown by which said
promissory note he she said Defendants then & there
promised one Thomas F RiddickThomas F Riddick to pay him twelve
months after the date of the said promissorynote she
sum of ninety three dollars seventy two cents
for value received. And the said Thomas F RiddickThomas F Riddick
to whom or to whose order the payment of the said sum
of money onthe said note specified was thereby directed
to be made after the making of the said promissory
note and before the payment of the said sum of money
thereinspecified to wit on the day and year aforesaid
at the county aforesaid, [ indorsed ] the said promissory
note to the Plaintiffs and thereby then & there addresed and
appointed the said sum of money, in the said promissory note speci
fied
to be paid the said Plaintiffs. By means whereof
the said defendant became then & there became liable

View original image: Page  002
[missing figure]
to pay to the said Plaintiff she said sum of money in
thesaidpromissory note specified according to thetenor
and effect of said note and of the endorsement so made
shown as aforesaid and being & liable he the said
Defendant in consideration thereof afterwards to
writ on &c aforesaid at &c aforesaid undertook and then
and there faithfullypromised the said plaintiff to pay
then the said sum of money in the said note specified
according to the tenor and effect thereof and of the
endorsementso made thereon as aforesaid Nevertheless
she said Defendant altho.often requested so to do
and altho the said sum of money in thesaidnotespecif
ed has been long since due, hath not paid to the
said Plaintiff the said sum of money in said note
specified a causeor any part thereof. ( Nor did the
said defendant pay the same to thesaidThomas FThomas F Riddick
RiddickThomas F Riddick before the [ indorsement ] aforesaid but the
said sam of money to the said plaintiff to pay the said
Defendant hathhitherto wholly refused and state does
refuse to the damage of the said Plaintiff of
one hundred and eighty dollars and therefore they
sue &c.

Pettus
Atty & Pltff