Fosdick v. Starbuck

4 Blackf. 417, 1837 Ind. LEXIS 73
Indiana Supreme Court·Decided December 2, 1837·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

THE assignee of a promissory note, given without consideration, may sue the assignor at any time, and without having previously sued the maker. Howell v. Wilson, 2 Blackf. 418.

The maker of a promissory note is a competent, witness for the plaintiff, in an action by the assignee against the assignor, involving the validity of the consideration of the note.

The statute requiring an oath to a plea, replication, &c., denying the execution of an instrument of writing, &c., does not dispense with the production of the instrument on the trial: it only excuses proof of the execution of the instrument, when such plea, &c. is without oath.

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

Fosdick v. Starbuck, 4 Blackf. 417, 1837 Ind. LEXIS 73 (Ind. 1837).

4 Blackf. 417 (Fosdick v. Starbuck) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Glenn v. Porter
49 Ind. 500 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1875)
Stutsman v. Thomas
39 Ind. 384 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1872)
Collins v. Maghee
32 Ind. 268 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1869)
Swiggett v. Seymour
23 F. Cas. 572 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Indiana, 1868)
Rich v. Sovacool
11 Ind. 148 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1858)