Jones v. Baum

5 Blackf. 154
CourtIndiana Supreme Court
DecidedJune 4, 1839
StatusPublished

This text of 5 Blackf. 154 (Jones v. Baum) 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
Jones v. Baum, 5 Blackf. 154 (Ind. 1839).

Opinion

DEBT by the assignee of the payee of a sealed note for the payment of money against the makers. Pleas, 1. That the assignor obtained the note by fraud, covin, and misrepresentation, and without consideration; 2. That the note was given for horses. purchased from, the assignor, which he represented and asserted at the time of sale to be sound, but which were unsound; 3. That the assignor, before the assignment, released the defendants from the payment of the note, and that the release was lost or destroyed by accident. Special demurrer for duplicity to the first plea. To the second plea there was a demurrer, and to the third a replication denying the loss of the release. Demurrer to the replication.

Held, that the first plea was good, the statement as to want of consideration being mere surplusage. Held, also, that the [155]*155second plea was bad; House v. Fort, 4 Blackf. 293 ; and that the third plea and the replication to it were good. Clark v. Faulkner, 1 Blackf. 218.

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

Related

Clark v. Faulkner
1 Blackf. 218 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1822)
House v. Fort
4 Blackf. 293 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1837)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
5 Blackf. 154, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-baum-ind-1839.