Mountjoy v. Mullikin
This text of 16 Ind. 226 (Mountjoy v. Mullikin) 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
Suit upon a note. Answer, that the note was given in consideration that the plaintiff, who carried on a machine shop, had repaired, and would further repair, a threshing machine, no time being fixed therefor; and that he had failed and refused to make such further repairs, though often requested.
This answer does not show a breach of the plaintiff’s promise to repair the machine. The place of making the repairs would be the shop of the plaintiff. It would devolve upon the defendant to place the machine at the shop, and [227]*227request the repairs, before the plaintiff would be bound to act. The promises were, as the case stood, independent. 12 Ind. 273.
The judgment is affirmed, with 1 per cent, damages arid costs.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
16 Ind. 226, 1861 Ind. LEXIS 106, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mountjoy-v-mullikin-ind-1861.