Compton v. Fleming

Indiana Supreme Court

Compton v. Fleming

8 Blackf. 153, 1846 Ind. LEXIS 86

CourtIndiana Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 15, 1846

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 8 Blackf. 153 (Compton v. Fleming) 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.

Bluebook

Compton v. Fleming, 8 Blackf. 153, 1846 Ind. LEXIS 86 (Ind. 1846).

Pincite

Opinion

Blackford, J.

Fleming sued Compton in replevin for detaining two horses. Pleas, 1. Non detinet; 2. Property in the defendant; 3. Property in one Robert II. Brickell. Replications to the second and third pleas, property in the plaintiff. On the trial, the plaintiff proved that he was the assignee, under the bankrupt law, of one M‘Makin, who had been declared a bankrupt, and that, before the commencement of the suit, said M‘Makin was the owner of the property described in the declaration. The defendant then offered to prove that M‘Makin had stated, at different times, before his application for the benefit of the bankrupt law, that the property in dispute belonged to Brickell, the person named in the third plea. The plaintiff objected to this evidence of the defendant, and the objection was sustained. The plaintiff offered to prove that, before the commencement [154]*1540f the suit, said Brickell had 'admitted that the property described in the declaration belonged to the bankrupt, M‘Ma-kin, through whom the plaintiff claimed as assignee. The evidence was objected to, but it was admitted. Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff.

E. H. Colerick, for the plaintiff. W. EL. Coombs, for the defendant.

The evidence offered by the defendant of the statements made by the bankrupt, before his application for the benefit of the bankrupt layv, ought to have been admitted. The plaintiff stands -in the place of the bankrupt, and the latter’s admissions tending to lessen the fund, made before the bankruptcy, were admissible against the plaintiff Bateman et al. v. Bailey, 5 T. R. 512, 513. — 1 Greenl. Ev. 220.

The evidence of the admissions of Brickell, which the plaintiff was permitted to introduce, was mere hearsay, and should have been rejected. Brickell himself might have been examined as a witness. Fuller v. Wilson et al. 6 Blackf. 403.

Per Curiam.

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

Blackford, J.

Fleming sued Compton in replevin for detaining two horses. Pleas, 1. Non detinet; 2. Property in the defendant; 3. Property in one Robert II. Brickell. Replications to the second and third pleas, property in the plaintiff. On the trial, the plaintiff proved that he was the assignee, under the bankrupt law, of one M‘Makin, who had been declared a bankrupt, and that, before the commencement of the suit, said M‘Makin was the owner of the property described in the declaration. The defendant then offered to prove that M‘Makin had stated, at different times, before his application for the benefit of the bankrupt law, that the property in dispute belonged to Brickell, the person named in the third plea. The plaintiff objected to this evidence of the defendant, and the objection was sustained. The plaintiff offered to prove that, before the commencement [154]*1540f the suit, said Brickell had 'admitted that the property described in the declaration belonged to the bankrupt, M‘Ma-kin, through whom the plaintiff claimed as assignee. The evidence was objected to, but it was admitted. Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff.

E. H. Colerick, for the plaintiff. W. EL. Coombs, for the defendant.

The evidence offered by the defendant of the statements made by the bankrupt, before his application for the benefit of the bankrupt layv, ought to have been admitted. The plaintiff stands -in the place of the bankrupt, and the latter’s admissions tending to lessen the fund, made before the bankruptcy, were admissible against the plaintiff Bateman et al. v. Bailey, 5 T. R. 512, 513. — 1 Greenl. Ev. 220.

The evidence of the admissions of Brickell, which the plaintiff was permitted to introduce, was mere hearsay, and should have been rejected. Brickell himself might have been examined as a witness. Fuller v. Wilson et al. 6 Blackf. 403.

Per Curiam.

The judgment is reversed with costs. Cause remanded, &c.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 Blackf. 153, 1846 Ind. LEXIS 86, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/compton-v-fleming-ind-1846.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack