Ledbetter v. Davis

22 N.E. 744, 121 Ind. 119, 1889 Ind. LEXIS 19
CourtIndiana Supreme Court
DecidedNovember 20, 1889
DocketNo. 13,823
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 22 N.E. 744 (Ledbetter v. Davis) 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
Ledbetter v. Davis, 22 N.E. 744, 121 Ind. 119, 1889 Ind. LEXIS 19 (Ind. 1889).

Opinion

Elliott, C. J.

— The appellants insist that a written lease is the foundation of the complaint, and that as it is not incorporated in the pleading or filed as an exhibit, the complaint is bad. The appellants are in error in asserting that the instrument is not filed and referred to in the pleading. It is averred that a written lease was executed, that a copy of it is filed marked exhibit “A,” and a copy thus designated is set forth in the record. This is sufficient. Straughan v. Fairchild, 80 Ind. 598; Whitworth v. Malcomb, 82 Ind. 454; Northwestern, etc., Co. v. Hazelett, 105 Ind. 212.

Where a written instrument is filed as an exhibit to one paragraph of a complaint, and appropriately designated, it need not be set out with each paragraph, for one exhibit is sufficient for all the paragraphs of a pleading. State, ex rel., v. Brown, 80 Ind. 425; Scotten v. Randolph, 96 Ind. 581; Hochstedler v. Hochstedler, 108 Ind. 506.

It is argued that the appellees can not recover damagés caused by their reliance upon the untruthful statements of the appellants, for the reason that by measurement they could have ascertained the truth. There is no merit in this contention. Where false statements as to the quantity of land are made for a fraudulent purpose, the plaintiff who relies upon them will not be denied a recovery because he acted upon the representations without measuring the land. West v. Wright, 98 Ind. 335; Dodge v. Pope, 93 Ind. 480; Jones v. Hathaway, 77 Ind. 14; Campbell v. Frankem, 65 Ind. 591.

The evidence is not in the record and we can not consider the question whether the damages were excessive.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

Carrell v. Ellingwood
423 N.E.2d 630 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1981)
Nixon v. Temple Terrace Estates, Inc.
121 So. 475 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1929)
Olson v. Laun
174 N.W. 473 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1919)
Wilson v. Robinson
155 P. 732 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1916)
Dulin v. Sharp
43 App. D.C. 550 (D.C. Circuit, 1915)
Beck v. Goar
100 N.E. 1 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1912)
Mabardy v. McHugh
88 N.E. 894 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1909)
Rohrof v. Schulte
55 N.E. 427 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1899)
Cawston v. Sturgis
43 P. 656 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1896)
Speed v. Hollingsworth
54 Kan. 436 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1894)
Bloomer v. Gray
37 N.E. 819 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1894)
Armstrong v. White
37 N.E. 28 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1894)
Backer v. Pyne
30 N.E. 21 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1892)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
22 N.E. 744, 121 Ind. 119, 1889 Ind. LEXIS 19, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ledbetter-v-davis-ind-1889.