Indianapolis Piano Manufacturing Co. v. First National Bank

33 Ind. 302
CourtIndiana Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 1, 1870
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 33 Ind. 302 (Indianapolis Piano Manufacturing Co. v. First National Bank) 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
Indianapolis Piano Manufacturing Co. v. First National Bank, 33 Ind. 302 (Ind. 1870).

Opinion

Ray, J.

This action was upon two notes executed by the appellant to the order of J. George Stiltz, and indorsed by parties who tvere made defendants to the action, and it is also alleged that the payee indorsed the note to the bank. A demurrer was overruled to the complaint.

• The appellant objects that no where except in the title of the action does the name of Stiltz appear as a defendant. Stiltz however appeared and answered, and judgment was rendered against him. ITe does not appeal, and if there were error, it could not 'avail the appellant. Again, it is said that no copy of the assignment is set out. The fact, however, is averred, and as against the maker the proof of that fact need not be pleaded. The maker of the' notes cannot avail itself of any defect in the allegations against the indorsers. The demurrer was correctly overruled.

The defendant filed certain paragraphs of an answer, which, upon interrogatories being filed by appellee and answered by appellant, were stricken out on motion. This action of the court is excepted to; but the answer is not brought into the record by bill of exceptions, and we cannot pass upon the objection. Fisher v. Ewing, 30 Ind. 130; Ammerman v. Crosby, 26 Ind. 451; Oiler v. Bodkey, 17 Ind. 600. The appellant complains of other alleged errors, which it asserts, in the motion for a new trial, were committed by the court; but no bill of exceptions is filed, and we cannot accept the statements contained in the motion for a new trial as true. McSheely v. Bently, 31 Ind. 235.

Judgment affirmed, with six per cent, damages and costs.

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

Related

Siberry v. State
39 N.E. 936 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1895)
Deal v. State
39 N.E. 930 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1895)
Indiana Racing Ass'n v. Allen
39 N.E. 669 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1895)
Louisville, New Albany & Chicago Railway Co. v. Miller
37 N.E. 343 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1894)
Claflin v. Cottman
77 Ind. 58 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1881)
Hughes v. State
65 Ind. 39 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1878)
Blizzard v. Blizzard
40 Ind. 344 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1872)
Skillen v. Skillen
41 Ind. 122 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1872)
Warner v. Campbell
39 Ind. 409 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1872)
Emmons v. Newman
38 Ind. 372 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1871)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
33 Ind. 302, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/indianapolis-piano-manufacturing-co-v-first-national-bank-ind-1870.