
    Harkness & Russell, Respondents, v. B. F. Jones et al., Appellants.
    Kansas City Court of Appeals,
    May 17, 1897.
    Promissory Note: pleading: petition: value received. In a petition on a promissory note which is copied i» 7iaee verba, the words of the note “for value received,” take the place of the allegation to that effect and made the petition good.
    
      Appeal from the Jaclcson Circuit Court. — Hon. J. H. Slover, Judge.
    Aeeirmed.
    
      J. T. Sullivan for appellants.
    The petition itself ” nowhere states that the note was ‘‘expressed for value received.” We suppose that the appellees would not for a moment claim that the copy of the note is any part of the petition, and that it is any more than if attached a.nd made an exhibit to the petition, hence, it is not what it claims to be, a negotiable promissory note. It declares on a negotiable promissory note, so it is unnecessary to discuss a nonnegotiable note. We think if we are right in this, that the court erred under the petition in allowing the note to be read in evidence. Jaccard v. Anderson, 32 Mo. 190; Bimmonds v. Belt, 35 Mo. 461.
    
      Laughlin d Davis for respondents.
    The first error assigned by appellant is that the petition does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, because it fails to allege that the note was given for value received. This contention is wholly without merit. In the case at bar the note is set forth in haec verba in the petition. The words of the note “for value received” take the place of the allegation in the petition. This distinguishes the petition in this case from those in the cases cited by appellant. Bateson v. Clark, 37 Mo. 31; Jones v. Louderman, 39 Mo. 288; Btcite ex rel. v. Williams, 77 Mo. 463; State ex rel. v. Pace, 34 Mo. App. 458; Bankv. Landis, 34 Mo. App. 433.
   G-ill, J.

This is a suit on a promissory note executed by defendant Jones to defendant Pain, who indorsed same to plaintiffs. There was judgment below for plaintiffs, and the indorser, Pain, appealed.

The sole question raised here relates to the sufficiency of the petition, the appellant contending that the same does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, because, it is said, the petition omits to state that the note was “expressed to be for value received,” which is a necessary element in the statutory requirements of a negotiable promissory note. R. S. 1889, sec. 733.

The point is not well taken. In the body of the petition the instrument sued on is copied in haec verba, and therein it appears that the note was executed “for value received.” This is sufficient. State ex rel., etc., v. Williams, 77 Mo. 463, 467; State ex rel. v. Pace, 34 Mo. App. 458; Bank v. Landis, 34 Mo. App. 433.

There is no merit in the appeal, and the judgment will be affirmed.

All concur.  