Bank of Missouri vs. William Clark
View original image: Page  003
[missing figure]

the said sum of money in the said note specified
when he the said William ClarkWilliam Clark should be there
unto afterwards requested and being so be the
said William ClarkWilliam Clark in under thereof after
wards to wit on the day and year but for and at
the county of St LouisSt Louis aforesaid and understood and
then and there faithfully promised the said
plaintiffs to pay them their said sum of money in
the said note specified when thereunto afterwards
requested

And whereas afterwards to wit on the 12th day of July in the year 1822 at County of St LouisCounty of St Louis and Kenndy made his promisory
note in hearing date the day and year aforesaid
and then and there promised sixty days after the
date thereof to pay to the said William ClarkWilliam Clark on order
the sum of one thousand dollars for balm reward
at the last of MissouriMissouriwithout and
the said William ClarkWilliam Clark to whomever whose only
the said sum of money in the said note specified
was to be made after the of the said note
and before the payment of the said sum of money therein
specified to wit on the day & year aforesaid at the
county of St LouisSt Louis aforesaid indorsed the said note
by which said indorsement he the said WilliamWilliam Clark
ClarkWilliam Clark then and there ordered and approved the said
sum of money in the said note specified to he
to the Plaintiff and then and there at the said
note to the said plaintiffs and the said plaintiffs
sums that after to the two the said sum of money in the
said note specified became due and pay all to
wit on the day of in the year at
the county aforesaid he instituted about against the said
JamesKenndy on the said promissory note and allowed
payment against the said JamesKenndy for the
sum of money specified in the said note with
therein and unto to wit at St LouisSt Louis county aforesaid in
that payment of said promissory note might he had
let the said James Kenndy he good &
lords and thousands by which said judgement could he
satisfied and discharged. By whereof and by

View original image: Page  004
[missing figure]
by force of the statute in such that case made and
promised the said William ClarkWilliam Clark then and
there became to pay to the said plaintiffs
the said sum of money in the the said note speci
fied, when he the said William ClarkWilliam Clark should be
thereunto afterwards requested and hung so ill
he the said William ClarkWilliam Clark in constitution thereof
afterwards to wit on the 12th day of august in the year 1829 at the county aforesaid under took &
then and there faithfully promised the said plain
tiffs to pay them the [ said of money ] in the said note
specified when he the said William ClarkWilliam Clark should
be thereunto afterwards requested

And whereas also the said William ClarkWilliam Clark after
wards to wit on the same day & year Court aforesaid in the county aforesaid was
indebited to the said Plaintiffs in the further sum
$1000 of the lawfull money for somuch money by
the said William ClarkWilliam Clark upon that had and was
to and further of the plaintiffs at his spe
cial instance and request and being so indebited
he the said William ClarkWilliam Clark in than
of afterwards to wit on the day & year aforesaid at
St Louis County aforesaid under then & there took and faithfully promised
the said plaintiffs to pay them the last mentioned
sum of money when he the said William ClarkWilliam Clark
should be thereunto afterwards requested. Yet the
said William ClarkWilliam Clark and though often requested so to
do hath not yet paid the said several sums mo
ney or any part thereof to the said plaintiffs but so to
do saith hitherto to wholly infused and still doth in
form to the damages of the said plaintiffs $2000
and therefore they hereing there suit

Shother pap.