Rudisill v. Sill

4 Blackf. 282, 1837 Ind. LEXIS 25
CourtIndiana Supreme Court
DecidedMay 29, 1837
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 4 Blackf. 282 (Rudisill v. Sill) 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
Rudisill v. Sill, 4 Blackf. 282, 1837 Ind. LEXIS 25 (Ind. 1837).

Opinion

Dewey, J.

This was an action of debt. The declaration describes, as the cause of action, a single bill for the payment of a sum of money “on or before the 20th day of February The defendant below having obtained oyer of the deed declared [283]*283on, set out an instrument payable “ on or before the 12th day of February,” and demurred generally. The plaintiff having produced to the Court the writing obligatory on which the action was founded, which corresponded with the description. of it in the declaration, moved the Court to reject the demurrer, because of the misrecital. The demurrer was rejected, and the defendant making no further defence, judgment was rendered against him by nil (licit. The error assigned is the rejection of the demurrer. °

A party who has obtained oyer of a specialty may waive the benefit of it if he please, but if he professedly set it out upon the record, he is bound to recite it truly and entire; and if he misrecite it, his adversary has a remedy against the consequences of the misrecital, by the usual English practice, in either of two ways: he may sign judgment as for want of a plea, or he may make the misrecited deed a matter of record by enrolment, and demur. This latter mode of proceeding, however, is applicable only to a plea averring matter of fact, and cannot be pursued in regard to a demurrer containing false recitals. And it has also been held, that instead of adopting either of these modes of remedy, the pleader of the deed may move the Court to quash the false plea. 4 T. Rep. 370. Our practice does not admit of a party signing judgment; he is nevertheless not bound to answer pleading containing untrue recitals upon oyer; he may move the Court to reject such pleading, and upon his motion being granted, take judgment for want 'of pleading, unless his adversary obtain the leave of the Court to proceed more Gorrectly

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

Related

In re the order of the arrest of Pearson
8 Fla. 496 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1859)
Lewis v. Garrett's Administrators
5 Miss. 434 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1841)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
4 Blackf. 282, 1837 Ind. LEXIS 25, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rudisill-v-sill-ind-1837.