Daubenspeck v. Pool

Indiana Supreme Court

Daubenspeck v. Pool

26 N.E. 892, 127 Ind. 364, 1891 Ind. LEXIS 216

CourtIndiana Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 12, 1891

DocketNo. 13,749

StatusPublished

This text of 26 N.E. 892 (Daubenspeck v. Pool) 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

Daubenspeck v. Pool, 26 N.E. 892, 127 Ind. 364, 1891 Ind. LEXIS 216 (Ind. 1891).

Pincite

Opinion

Elliott, J.

The appellant’s complaint is founded upon, a mortgage alleged to have been lost, and the issue in the case was made by a plea of payment. It is asserted by appellant’s counsel that there is no evidence tending to establish the defence, but in this counsel are in error. There is-certainly some evidence to that effect. One witness swears-that the appellant told him that “ the mortgagor had lifted the mortgage,” and another swears that she saw the mortgage in the possession of the mortgagor. While the evidence of payment is not satisfactory, and while it is true that if the case were before us as triers of the facts, we would be inclined to a different conclusion from that reached by the trial court, still, the long settled rules of law constrain us to abide by the decision of the lower court.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Elliott, J.

The appellant’s complaint is founded upon, a mortgage alleged to have been lost, and the issue in the case was made by a plea of payment. It is asserted by appellant’s counsel that there is no evidence tending to establish the defence, but in this counsel are in error. There is-certainly some evidence to that effect. One witness swears-that the appellant told him that “ the mortgagor had lifted the mortgage,” and another swears that she saw the mortgage in the possession of the mortgagor. While the evidence of payment is not satisfactory, and while it is true that if the case were before us as triers of the facts, we would be inclined to a different conclusion from that reached by the trial court, still, the long settled rules of law constrain us to abide by the decision of the lower court.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 N.E. 892, 127 Ind. 364, 1891 Ind. LEXIS 216, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/daubenspeck-v-pool-ind-1891.