Ross v. Smith

15 N.E. 268, 113 Ind. 242, 1888 Ind. LEXIS 29
CourtIndiana Supreme Court
DecidedJanuary 28, 1888
DocketNo. 12,965
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 15 N.E. 268 (Ross v. Smith) 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
Ross v. Smith, 15 N.E. 268, 113 Ind. 242, 1888 Ind. LEXIS 29 (Ind. 1888).

Opinion

Mitchell, C. J.

This was an action to recover for goods sold and delivered by the appellees, trading in the name of J. B. Smith & Co., to the appellant, John Ross, at his especial instance and request.

The complaint was a common count, in the usual form, with an itemized bill of particulars attached, from which it appears that there was due the plaintiffs below the sum of $332.12. The complaint contains a formal demand for judg[243]*243ment for $600, and for general relief. The plaintiffs recovered judgment for $356.19.

Filed Jan. 28, 1888.

The appellant makes the point that the plaintiffs were limited in their recovery to the amount of the account exhibited with the complaint, and he insists that so much of the judgment as is above $332.12 is, therefore, excessive.

The undisputed evidence shows that the account was closed and an itemized bill thereof rendered, and payment demanded, March 1st, 1884. The judgment was rendered May 14th, 1885.

The court evidently allowed interest on the account in compliance with section 5200, R. S. 1881.

There was no error. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

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

Related

In Re Marriage of Johnson
625 N.E.2d 1331 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1993)
Cline v. Rodabaugh
179 N.E. 6 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1931)
Kuhn v. Powell
111 N.E. 639 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1916)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
15 N.E. 268, 113 Ind. 242, 1888 Ind. LEXIS 29, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ross-v-smith-ind-1888.