Budd v. Wilkinson
This text of 5 Blackf. 264 (Budd v. Wilkinson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Debt. The declaration states that the defendant, Wilkinson, made his promissory note payable to E. R. Day, and that E. R. Day, before the payment thereof, assigned the note to the plaintiff. The declaration did not set forth the Christian name of Day. General demurrer, and judgment for the defendant.
This judgment must be reversed. The proper Christian and surnames of parties to a suit 'should be stated with [265]*265certainty in the record, as has been repeatedly decided; but we are aware of no case, in which it has been held that this principle applies to the names of persons not parties. A note payable to partners may be assigned by them in the partnership name, and in a suit by the assignee against the maker, it is not necessary to disclose the names of the persons composing the firm. Cochran v. Scott, 3 Wend. 229.— Childress v. Emory, 8 Wheat. 669.—Stout v. Hicks, Nov. term, 1838. There are reasons for identifying the parties to a suit, which do not apply to third persons. We think the Court erred in sustaining the demurrer.
The judgment is reversed with costs. Cause remanded, &c.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
5 Blackf. 264, 1840 Ind. LEXIS 6, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/budd-v-wilkinson-ind-1840.