Johnson v. Conklin

Indiana Supreme Court

Johnson v. Conklin

21 N.E. 462, 119 Ind. 109, 1889 Ind. LEXIS 241

CourtIndiana Supreme Court

DecidedMay 17, 1889

DocketNo. 13,912

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 21 N.E. 462 (Johnson v. Conklin) 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

Johnson v. Conklin, 21 N.E. 462, 119 Ind. 109, 1889 Ind. LEXIS 241 (Ind. 1889).

Pincite

Opinion

Elliott, C. J. —

The plaintiff, Maria Conklin, brought this action to recover the amount evidenced by a promissory note executed to her as payee by the appellant. The trial court sustained demurrers to several paragraphs of the answer filed by the appellant, and he thereupon asked and obtained leave to amend. He subsequently filed several paragraphs of answer, to which the plaintiff replied. He here complains of the ruling on the demurrers to the original answer. His complaint is unavailing. Prima facie, the answers last filed were amendments of the original .pleading, and that pleading went out of the case when the last answers were filed. By filing the answers after the leave to amend was obtained, the exceptions taken on the original pleading were waived. Hunter v. Pfeiffer, 108 Ind. 197.

But if we should consider the original answer as properly in the record, and the exceptions as available, it would not change the result, for the answer is bad. It seeks to show that the payee of the note was not the real party in interest at the time the note was executed, and this the maker of a promissory note is estopped from doing. Blacker v. Dunbar, 108 Ind. 217; Wells v. Sutton, 85 Ind. 70; Rogers v. Place, 29 Ind. 577; French, v. Blanchard, 16 Ind. 143.

Judgment affirmed, with ten per centum damages.

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

Elliott, C. J. —

The plaintiff, Maria Conklin, brought this action to recover the amount evidenced by a promissory note executed to her as payee by the appellant. The trial court sustained demurrers to several paragraphs of the answer filed by the appellant, and he thereupon asked and obtained leave to amend. He subsequently filed several paragraphs of answer, to which the plaintiff replied. He here complains of the ruling on the demurrers to the original answer. His complaint is unavailing. Prima facie, the answers last filed were amendments of the original .pleading, and that pleading went out of the case when the last answers were filed. By filing the answers after the leave to amend was obtained, the exceptions taken on the original pleading were waived. Hunter v. Pfeiffer, 108 Ind. 197.

But if we should consider the original answer as properly in the record, and the exceptions as available, it would not change the result, for the answer is bad. It seeks to show that the payee of the note was not the real party in interest at the time the note was executed, and this the maker of a promissory note is estopped from doing. Blacker v. Dunbar, 108 Ind. 217; Wells v. Sutton, 85 Ind. 70; Rogers v. Place, 29 Ind. 577; French, v. Blanchard, 16 Ind. 143.

Judgment affirmed, with ten per centum damages.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

21 N.E. 462, 119 Ind. 109, 1889 Ind. LEXIS 241, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-conklin-ind-1889.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack