Rogers v. Worth

4 Blackf. 186, 1836 Ind. LEXIS 32
CourtIndiana Supreme Court
DecidedDecember 24, 1836
StatusPublished

This text of 4 Blackf. 186 (Rogers v. Worth) 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
Rogers v. Worth, 4 Blackf. 186, 1836 Ind. LEXIS 32 (Ind. 1836).

Opinion

M’Kinney, J.

Debt against the obligor on an assigned writing obligatory. To a plea of fraud, covin, and deceit, practised by the payee of the note on the sale of a washing-machine, in fraudulently representing himself to be the inventor and patentee of the same, &c., there was a general replication. The [187]*187cause was submitted to the Court without the intervention of a jury, and judgment rendered for the plaintiff.

C. B. Smith, for the plaintiff. S. Bigger and J. Perry, for the defendant.

From a bill of exceptions, it appears that no other evidence was offered but the writing obligatory. It is contended, that this was not sufficient to warrant a judgment in favour of the plaintiff below; but that he should by proof have repelled the charge of fraud.' This question was recently before us in Towsey v.- Shook, 3 Blackf. 267, and there settled that the proof in support of the charge devolved upon the defendant; the plea being affirmative, and there being nothing in its character to take it out of the rule requiring affirmative pleas to be proved.

Per Curiam.

The judgment is affirmed with costs. To be certified, &c.

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

Related

Towsey v. Shook
3 Blackf. 267 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1833)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
4 Blackf. 186, 1836 Ind. LEXIS 32, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rogers-v-worth-ind-1836.