Fink v. Maples

15 Ind. 297, 1860 Ind. LEXIS 412
Indiana Supreme Court·Decided December 11, 1860·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Suit upon a note, for a certain sum of money, a part of which might be paid in a specific article, within twenty days.

The note was assigned, and the suit was by the assignee.

We are inclined to regard the instrument as a promissory note, assignable by the statute.

M. Jenhinson, for appellant. W. M. Crane and W. S. Smith, for appellee.

The defendant demurred for defect of parties, but did not specify in hjs demurrer what party was omitted, or improperly added.

A plea in abatement must specify the party omitted, thus giving a better writ. In this case there was no defect of .parties.

The judgment is affirmed, with 10 per cent, damages and costs.

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

Fink v. Maples, 15 Ind. 297, 1860 Ind. LEXIS 412 (Ind. 1860).

15 Ind. 297 (Fink v. Maples) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Gardner v. Fisher
87 Ind. 369 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1882)