Schultz v. Rennick
82 Ind. App. 606
Opinion
(after making the foregoing statement) :
We are of the opinion that, as against the objections stated in the memorandum, the complaint is good. Rochester Bridge Co. v. McNeill (1919), 188 Ind. 432; Bailey v. London Guarantee, etc., Co. (1918), 72 Ind. App. 84. The court did not err in overruling the motion to arrest judgment.
The judgment is affirmed
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Schultz v. Rennick, 82 Ind. App. 606 (Ind. Ct. App. 1925).
82 Ind. App. 606 (Schultz v. Rennick) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Rochester Bridge Co. v. McNeill
122 N.E. 662 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1919)
Bailey v. London Guarantee & Accident Co.
121 N.E. 128 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1918)