Eakle v. Oliver

5 Blackf. 3, 1838 Ind. LEXIS 2
Indiana Supreme Court·Decided November 19, 1838·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Sullivan, J.

This is an action of debt on a bond for the

delivery of certain property levied on by a constable in Marion ^pounty. The defendants pleaded nil debent. The plaintiff moved to reject the plea, to which the defendants objected; but the Court sustained the motion and rejected the plea. Final judgment was rendered for the plaintiff.

The plea of nil debet is not a good plea in debt where a deed is the foundation of the action. It is not however a nullity. It is adapted to the nature of the action, and goes to the substance of it. If the plaintiff take issue upon it, the defendant may prove any special matter of defence under it, which he might prove under the same plea in debt on simple contract. To avoid the plea in an action founded on a bond, the plaintiff must demur, and rely upon the conclusion of law, that the defendant is estopped by his deed from saying that he is not indebted. Coppin v. Carter, 1 T. R. 462.—Thellusson v. Smith, 5 T. R. 152.—3 Ch. G. P. 752.—Gould’s Pl. 310.—1 Ch. Pl. 552.-2 Ch. Rep. 239-Baily v. Edwards, Cas. Temp. Hardw. 179

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

Eakle v. Oliver, 5 Blackf. 3, 1838 Ind. LEXIS 2 (Ind. 1838).

5 Blackf. 3 (Eakle v. Oliver) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Robinson v. McWayne
35 Haw. 689 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 1940)
State Bank v. Campbell
12 Ind. 42 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1859)