Nave v. Horton

Indiana Supreme Court

Nave v. Horton

9 Ind. 563

DecidedDecember 11, 1857

StatusPublished

This text of 9 Ind. 563 (Nave v. Horton) 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

Nave v. Horton, 9 Ind. 563 (Ind. 1857).

Pincite

Opinion

Stuart, J.

Suit on two promissory notes, by Horton against Nave and others. Judgment for the plaintiff.

Two errors are assigned—

1. The Court erred in sustaining the demurrer to the answer.

But the defendant below did not except. Hence, the record presents no question on that ruling.

2. The Court erred in refusing a continuance.

The defendants filed their affidavit, strictly conforming to the requirements of the statute as to the absent witness, and what they could prove. Upon that affidavit they moved for a continuance. The plaintiff thereupon, in open Court, admitted the facts, &c., and the Court overruled the motion for a continuance. Defendants excepted.

The admission, as set out in the bill of exceptions, is thus: “ The plaintiff, in open Court, agreed to admit, on the trial, all the facts expected to be proved by said witness, but denied the allegations expected to be proved by the plaintiff.”

This admission is not sufficient. He should admit, in substantial compliance with the statute. The statute is, “ If, thereupon, the adverse party will consent that, on the trial, the facts shall be taken as true, the trial shall not be postponed for that cause.” 2 R. S. p. 109. ' To defeat the continuance, the agreement that the facts be taken as true should be without reserve. If there he in the affidavit irrelevant matter, it is for the jury, under the direction of the Court, to say what facts are thus admitted to be true

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

Stuart, J.

Suit on two promissory notes, by Horton against Nave and others. Judgment for the plaintiff.

Two errors are assigned—

1. The Court erred in sustaining the demurrer to the answer.

But the defendant below did not except. Hence, the record presents no question on that ruling.

2. The Court erred in refusing a continuance.

The defendants filed their affidavit, strictly conforming to the requirements of the statute as to the absent witness, and what they could prove. Upon that affidavit they moved for a continuance. The plaintiff thereupon, in open Court, admitted the facts, &c., and the Court overruled the motion for a continuance. Defendants excepted.

The admission, as set out in the bill of exceptions, is thus: “ The plaintiff, in open Court, agreed to admit, on the trial, all the facts expected to be proved by said witness, but denied the allegations expected to be proved by the plaintiff.”

This admission is not sufficient. He should admit, in substantial compliance with the statute. The statute is, “ If, thereupon, the adverse party will consent that, on the trial, the facts shall be taken as true, the trial shall not be postponed for that cause.” 2 R. S. p. 109. ' To defeat the continuance, the agreement that the facts be taken as true should be without reserve. If there he in the affidavit irrelevant matter, it is for the jury, under the direction of the Court, to say what facts are thus admitted to be true

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

9 Ind. 563, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nave-v-horton-ind-1857.