
    ADAMS et al. vs. M'MILLAN.
    1. The inference usually expressed in a declaration on a promissory note, “by means wheveo!” &e. is supplied by a statement of a promise to pay the note according to its tenor and effect.
    
      2. The omission to insert an allegation, that defendant, is liable to pay the not ■, is not a matter oí substance, to be reached by general demurrer, or on error.
    3. A promissory note is, in itself., a 1egal liability, and needs no distinct substantive allegation in the dec.oration, to entit'e a plaintiff to recover, apart from a description of tne note, and an allegation of non-payment.
    Error t.o the Circuit court of Dallas.
    Assumpsit on promissory note, tried before Pickens, J.
    The plaintiffs in error were sued in assumpsit, on a promissory note, in the Circuit court of Dallas, and judgment by default rendered against them. The only error relied on was, that “ the declaration is defective, in not stating a legal liability.”
    Gayle, for plaintiffs in error.
    Edwards, contra.
   COLLIER, C. J.

— -The declaration, "after setting out the promissory note, its delivery, &c. proceeds thus: “ and said defendants then and there, in consideration of the premises, promised to pay the money specified in said note, to said plaintiff, according to the tenor and effect thereof, yet said defendants have not paid,” &c.

It is objected, that this statement of a promise is not sustained by the inference usually thus expressed : “ by means whereof, &c. the said defendants then and there became liable to pay to the said plaintiff, the said note specified, according to the tenor and effect of said note.’* This allegation is inserted in most forms of declarations, where the action is against the parties primarily liable, as the maker of a note or acceptor of a bill; and though it may have been considered a formal allegation, the omission of which would be bad on special demurrer, it is clear, that it is not a mátter of sui.stance, to be reached by a general demurrer, or on error.

.The promissory note is in itself a legal liability, arid needs not a distinct substantive allegation to entitle a plaintiff to recover, apart from a description of the nóte, and an allegation of non-payment, &c. in the declaration —(Bayl. on Bills, 112, 362, note 1; Starkie vs. Cheeseman, Carth. 510, S. C.; Salk, 128; Anon. Hardre's Rep. 486; Bacon’s Ab. tit. assumpsit, F.; 1 Taunt. R. 217; act of 1812, Aik. Dig. 328; act of 1811, Aik. Dig. 283.)

There is no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.  