Colman v. Graeter

Indiana Supreme Court

Colman v. Graeter

1 Blackf. 388, 1825 Ind. LEXIS 34

Indiana Supreme Court·Decided November 16, 1825·Published

Opinion

DEBT against three persons. The writ was served on two on]y? and returned as to the other “non est inventus.” Held, that this return*, with a suggestion of it on the record, authorizes the plaintiff, in such suit, to proceed against those on whom the process is served; Stat. 1823, p. 290; but that a return of “no inhabitant” was formerly required in such cases. Morris v. Knight, ante, p. 106. — Palmer v. Crosby, ante, p. 139.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

DEBT against three persons. The writ was served on two on]y? and returned as to the other “non est inventus.” Held, that this return*, with a suggestion of it on the record, authorizes the plaintiff, in such suit, to proceed against those on whom the process is served; Stat. 1823, p. 290; but that a return of “no inhabitant” was formerly required in such cases. Morris v. Knight, ante, p. 106. — Palmer v. Crosby, ante, p. 139.

Colman v. Graeter, 1 Blackf. 388, 1825 Ind. LEXIS 34 (Ind. 1825).

Pincite

1 Blackf. 388 (Colman v. Graeter) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.