McNeer v. Dipboy
This text of 14 Ind. 18 (McNeer v. Dipboy) 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
Complaint by the appellee against the appellants on a note.
Answer, that after the making of the note, and before the commencement of the suit, the plaintiff, for a valuable consideration, executed a written release, whereby he released the defendants from the payment of the note, which release was lost, &c.
Reply in denial.
Demurrer to the replication overruled, and judgment for the plaintiff.
The only point made in the case, relates to the ruling of the Court on the demurrer.
It is insisted that the replication was bad because it was not sworn to. Whatever may have been the rule under former statutes'which are now repealed, it is settled under our present practice that pleadings denying the execution of written instruments are valid without being sworn to. Vide Magee v. Sanderson, 10 Ind. R. 261.
No question is raised as to the effect of pleadings in such case, not verified, upon the evidence to be adduced under them.
The judgment is affirmed with 5 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
14 Ind. 18, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcneer-v-dipboy-ind-1860.