Hunt v. Raymond

11 Ind. 215
CourtIndiana Supreme Court
DecidedDecember 3, 1858
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 11 Ind. 215 (Hunt v. Raymond) 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
Hunt v. Raymond, 11 Ind. 215 (Ind. 1858).

Opinion

Worden, J.

This was an action by the appellees against the appellant on two notes. Judgment for plaintiffs. The only error relied upon to reverse the judgment is the admission of one of the notes in evidence. It is described in the complaint as being for 139 dollars, 38 cents, and a copy [216]*216was filed with the complaint, by which it appears to have been for 139 dollars, 39 cents. The note offered in evidence was for the latter sum, and objection was made for the variance as to amount. On the supposition that the copy of the note filed would not control the description of it in the complaint, still the complaint could have been amended on the trial. 2 R. S. p. 48, § 99, and p. 44, § 78. That being the case, the defect must be deemed to be amended here. Id. p. 162, § 580.

S. Colgrove, for the appellant. J. Brown and T. M. Browne, for the appellees.

It is also objected that the complaint was against Joshua P. Ihmt, and the note offered in evidence was signed by J. P. Hunt. There is nothing in this objection. Muirhead v. Snyder, 4 Ind. R. 486. The note, or a copy of it, was filed with the complaint as a part of the cause of action. This is equivalent to an averment that the defendant made the note by the name of J. P. Hunt. If he had intended to put in issue the making of the note by that name, he should have denied the same, under oath. Unthank v. The Henry County Turnpike Co., 6 Ind. R. 125.

Per Cwriam. — 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

Related

McDonald v. Hare
62 N.E. 501 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1902)
Supreme Lodge Knights v. Foster
59 N.E. 877 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1901)
Cincinnati Barbed Wire Fence Co. v. Chenoweth
54 N.E. 403 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1899)
Supreme Lodge of Knights of Pythias of the World v. Edwards
41 N.E. 850 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1895)
Woollen v. Whitacre
73 Ind. 198 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1880)
Rightsell v. Kellum
48 Ind. 252 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1874)
Napier v. Mayhew
35 Ind. 276 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1871)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
11 Ind. 215, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hunt-v-raymond-ind-1858.