Pace v. Grove

26 Ind. 26
Indiana Supreme Court·Decided May 15, 1866·Published·Cited by 9 cases

Opinion

Ray, J.

The complaint in this ease sets forth two promissory notes and a mortgage given to secure their payment, and asks for judgment and other proper relief. There is no averment that the notes were unpaid. A demurrer was filed to the complaint and was overruled. This was error. It has been ruled by this court, in the case of Lawson v. Sherra, 21 Ind. 363, that in an action upon a note the complaint, to be sufficient, should contain an averment that the note remains unpaid. The demurrer should, therefore, [27] have been sustained. "We do not feel it to be our duty to review the action of the court upon the answer to the complaint.

L. M. Ninde and H. S. Taylor, for appellants.

The judgment is reversed, with costs, and the court below is directed to sustain the demurrer to the complaint.

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

Pace v. Grove, 26 Ind. 26 (Ind. 1866).

26 Ind. 26 (Pace v. Grove) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Jaqua v. Shewalter
36 N.E. 173 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1893)
Stanton v. Kenrick
35 N.E. 19 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1893)
Riley v. Walker
34 N.E. 100 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1893)
Goodman v. Gordon
87 Ind. 126 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1882)
Higert v. Trustees of Indiana Asbury University
53 Ind. 326 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1876)
Green v. Louthain
49 Ind. 139 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1874)
Stafford v. Davidson
47 Ind. 319 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1874)
Kent v. Cantrall
44 Ind. 452 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1873)
Howorth v. Scarce
29 Ind. 278 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1868)