Overman v. Forkner

Indiana Supreme Court

Overman v. Forkner

14 Ind. 294

DecidedJune 4, 1860

StatusPublished

This text of 14 Ind. 294 (Overman v. Forkner) 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

Overman v. Forkner, 14 Ind. 294 (Ind. 1860).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Cmiam.

This was a suit by Overman against the appellees, to recover 30 dollars paid by the plaintiff to the [295]*295defendants, on a due bill executed by the plaintiff to the defendants, as follows: “Due on the first day of June next, fifty dollars for corn-mill, to be sent to Liverpool, Illinois river, to be sent from Cincinnati by river. Centreville, March 12, 1855.”

G. W Julian, for the appellant. O. P. Morton, J. F. Kibbey, J. S. Newman, and J. P. Siddall, for the appellees.

The defendants set up, by way of counter-claim, the above due bill, and on the trial had a finding by the Court in their favor, for the balance remaining unpaid thereon, and judgment, a new trial being refused.

On a careful consideration of the testimony, we think it' fails to establish the fact that the corn-mill was sent according to the stipulation mentioned, and therefore that the finding and judgment for the defendants cannot be sustained.

The judgment is reversed with costs. Cause remanded, &c.

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

Per Cmiam.

This was a suit by Overman against the appellees, to recover 30 dollars paid by the plaintiff to the [295]*295defendants, on a due bill executed by the plaintiff to the defendants, as follows: “Due on the first day of June next, fifty dollars for corn-mill, to be sent to Liverpool, Illinois river, to be sent from Cincinnati by river. Centreville, March 12, 1855.”

G. W Julian, for the appellant. O. P. Morton, J. F. Kibbey, J. S. Newman, and J. P. Siddall, for the appellees.

The defendants set up, by way of counter-claim, the above due bill, and on the trial had a finding by the Court in their favor, for the balance remaining unpaid thereon, and judgment, a new trial being refused.

On a careful consideration of the testimony, we think it' fails to establish the fact that the corn-mill was sent according to the stipulation mentioned, and therefore that the finding and judgment for the defendants cannot be sustained.

The judgment is reversed with costs. Cause remanded, &c.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

14 Ind. 294, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/overman-v-forkner-ind-1860.