Pixley v. VanNostern

Indiana Supreme Court

Pixley v. VanNostern

100 Ind. 34, 1885 Ind. LEXIS 160

CourtIndiana Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 22, 1885

DocketNo. 11,933

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 100 Ind. 34 (Pixley v. VanNostern) 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

Pixley v. VanNostern, 100 Ind. 34, 1885 Ind. LEXIS 160 (Ind. 1885).

Pincite

Opinion

Black, C.

Action by the appellee against the appellants upon a promissory note executed by the latter to one Mary E. "Warner, and by her endorsed to the appellee. The appellants answered, admitting the execution of the note to the payee named therein, but alleging that she was then, and ever since the execution of the note had been, the owner thereof in her own right; that the plaintiff had not, and never did have, any right, title or interest in or to said note other than as the agent and trustee of said payee; that the note was assigned to the plaintiff for the purposes of collection and not otherwise; and that said payee was the real party in interest. This answer was verified by the affidavit of one of the defendants.

The plaintiff replied by general denial. The court tried [35]*35the cause and found for the plaintiff, assessing his damages, and rendered judgment accordingly.

Filed Jan. 22, 1885.

All the questions that the appellants have sought to present for our decision resolve themselves into one, which is whether the answer was in bar or in abatement, it being contended on behalf of the appellants that it was the latter. This position of the appellants can not be sustained. Swift v. Ellsworth, 10 Ind. 205; Wilson v. Clark, 11 Ind. 385; Lewis v. Sheaman, 28 Ind. 427; Hereth v. Smith, 33 Ind. 514. We find no error.

Per Curiam. — It is ordered, upon the foregoing opinion, that the judgment be affirmed at the costs of the , appellants.

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

Black, C.

Action by the appellee against the appellants upon a promissory note executed by the latter to one Mary E. "Warner, and by her endorsed to the appellee. The appellants answered, admitting the execution of the note to the payee named therein, but alleging that she was then, and ever since the execution of the note had been, the owner thereof in her own right; that the plaintiff had not, and never did have, any right, title or interest in or to said note other than as the agent and trustee of said payee; that the note was assigned to the plaintiff for the purposes of collection and not otherwise; and that said payee was the real party in interest. This answer was verified by the affidavit of one of the defendants.

The plaintiff replied by general denial. The court tried [35]*35the cause and found for the plaintiff, assessing his damages, and rendered judgment accordingly.

Filed Jan. 22, 1885.

All the questions that the appellants have sought to present for our decision resolve themselves into one, which is whether the answer was in bar or in abatement, it being contended on behalf of the appellants that it was the latter. This position of the appellants can not be sustained. Swift v. Ellsworth, 10 Ind. 205; Wilson v. Clark, 11 Ind. 385; Lewis v. Sheaman, 28 Ind. 427; Hereth v. Smith, 33 Ind. 514. We find no error.

Per Curiam. — It is ordered, upon the foregoing opinion, that the judgment be affirmed at the costs of the , appellants.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

100 Ind. 34, 1885 Ind. LEXIS 160, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pixley-v-vannostern-ind-1885.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack