Johnson v. Johnson

17 N.E. 111, 115 Ind. 112, 1888 Ind. LEXIS 302
Indiana Supreme Court·Decided May 11, 1888·No. No. 13,261·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Elliott, J.

The appellant instituted this suit upon a note and mortgage, and Charlotte Johnson filed a cross-complaint or counter-claim wherein she alleged that she was the wife of Berry Johnson; that the note and mortgage were executed by her as surety for her husband, who had borrowed the money of the mortgagee, and that she acquired the land mortgaged by gift from her father. The counterclaim prayed a cancellation of the mortgage'. After issue joined on the counter-claim the appellant dismissed his complaint.

There is no bill of exceptions presenting the motion or affidavit for a change of venue, and, consequently, no question is before us upon the ruling denying a change of venue.

The issue joined on the counter-claim was one of equitable cognizance, and the court did not err in denying the appellant’s request for a trial by jury.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Johnson v. Johnson, 17 N.E. 111, 115 Ind. 112, 1888 Ind. LEXIS 302 (Ind. 1888).

17 N.E. 111 (Johnson v. Johnson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Estate of Ballard v. Ballard
434 N.E.2d 136 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1982)
Fish v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America
75 N.E.2d 57 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1947)