Jackson v. Burgert
This text of 28 Ind. 36 (Jackson v. Burgert) 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.
Opinion
— Thomas Burgert and Joseph Adams sued Charles J. Barker and Andrew Jackson on a promissory note. The note is signed “Chas. J. Barker, A. Jackson,” and is payable to “Burgert and Adams.” There was a judgment by default against Jackson, the suit as to Barker having been dismissed.
It is claimed that the complaint is defective for not having averred that the note was signed by Jackson by the description of “A. Jackson,” and that it is insufficient in not stating that the promise was made to the plaintiffs by the style of “Burgert and Adams.” The complaint is in the form prescribed by the code. The copy of the note which is a part of the complaint shows how the note was executed and to whom payable. The complaint is good.
The evidence is not in the record. It is urged that the judgment is for too much. Ro motion was made in the court below to correct the judgment. We cannot say, from all that now appears of record, that there is any error of which the appellant has a right to complain.
The judgment is affirmed, with five per cent, damages and costs.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
28 Ind. 36, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jackson-v-burgert-ind-1867.