Cook v. Delay

Indiana Court of Appeals

Cook v. Delay

115 N.E. 377, 64 Ind. App. 703, 1917 Ind. App. LEXIS 98

CourtIndiana Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 13, 1917

DocketNo. 9,242

StatusPublished

This text of 115 N.E. 377 (Cook v. Delay) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cook v. Delay, 115 N.E. 377, 64 Ind. App. 703, 1917 Ind. App. LEXIS 98 (Ind. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

Felt, C. J.

This is a suit brought by appellants, Frank V. Cook, James H. Black and George W. J. Hoffman, doing business as Cook, Black and Hoffman, against appellees, Judson A. DeLay and Ira V. Corbin, to recover on a bond executed by appellee DeLay, as commissioner for the sale of real estate in a partition suit, and by appellee Corbin, his surety thereon.

The question presented by. the assignment of errors in this case is the same as that presented, and decided by this court, at the present term, in Kiefer Drug Co. v. DeLay (1917), 63 Ind. App. 639, 114 N. E. 35. Except for the change in the names of the appellants and the amount in controversy, the material facts of the cases are identical.

Therefore, on the authority of that decision, the judgment in this case is affirmed.

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

Felt, C. J.

This is a suit brought by appellants, Frank V. Cook, James H. Black and George W. J. Hoffman, doing business as Cook, Black and Hoffman, against appellees, Judson A. DeLay and Ira V. Corbin, to recover on a bond executed by appellee DeLay, as commissioner for the sale of real estate in a partition suit, and by appellee Corbin, his surety thereon.

The question presented by. the assignment of errors in this case is the same as that presented, and decided by this court, at the present term, in Kiefer Drug Co. v. DeLay (1917), 63 Ind. App. 639, 114 N. E. 35. Except for the change in the names of the appellants and the amount in controversy, the material facts of the cases are identical.

Therefore, on the authority of that decision, the judgment in this case is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

115 N.E. 377, 64 Ind. App. 703, 1917 Ind. App. LEXIS 98, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cook-v-delay-indctapp-1917.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack