Nooe v. Higdon

Indiana Supreme Court

Nooe v. Higdon

4 Blackf. 184, 1836 Ind. LEXIS 28

DecidedDecember 24, 1836

StatusPublished

This text of 4 Blackf. 184 (Nooe v. Higdon) 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

Nooe v. Higdon, 4 Blackf. 184, 1836 Ind. LEXIS 28 (Ind. 1836).

Pincite

Opinion

TRESPASS quare clausum fregit, for breaking the plaintiff’s stable and taking away his horse. Pleas, 1st, That the stable was in the possession of the defendant and one A. as tenants of the plaintiff; that the horse belonged to the defendant and A., and was in M.’s part of the stable, &c. 2dly, That B. had obtained a judgment against C. before a justice, and that the defendant and JL. were C.’s replevin-bail; that afi. fa. was issued on. the judgment and delivered to a constable; that the horse was C.’s, but the plaintiff kept him concealed and locked up in the stable, and refused to deliver him, &c.; and that the defendant, by A.’s permission, opened the stable, &c. Replications to these pleas, and issues. Held, on the trial, that A. was a competent witness for the defendant.

If an execution be proved to be lost, its contents may be proved by parol evidence.

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

TRESPASS quare clausum fregit, for breaking the plaintiff’s stable and taking away his horse. Pleas, 1st, That the stable was in the possession of the defendant and one A. as tenants of the plaintiff; that the horse belonged to the defendant and A., and was in M.’s part of the stable, &c. 2dly, That B. had obtained a judgment against C. before a justice, and that the defendant and JL. were C.’s replevin-bail; that afi. fa. was issued on. the judgment and delivered to a constable; that the horse was C.’s, but the plaintiff kept him concealed and locked up in the stable, and refused to deliver him, &c.; and that the defendant, by A.’s permission, opened the stable, &c. Replications to these pleas, and issues. Held, on the trial, that A. was a competent witness for the defendant.

If an execution be proved to be lost, its contents may be proved by parol evidence.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 Blackf. 184, 1836 Ind. LEXIS 28, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nooe-v-higdon-ind-1836.