Smith v. Emerson

Indiana Supreme Court

Smith v. Emerson

16 Ind. 355, 1861 Ind. LEXIS 181

CourtIndiana Supreme Court

DecidedJune 10, 1861

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 16 Ind. 355 (Smith v. Emerson) 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

Smith v. Emerson, 16 Ind. 355, 1861 Ind. LEXIS 181 (Ind. 1861).

Pincite

Opinion

Worden, J.

Emerson sued Smith before a justice of the peace, in an action of replevin for a wagon. Afterward, on motion of the plaintiff, and, as we suppose from the statements in the record, on an additional affidavit being filed, Ivers was made a co-defendant. The parties appeared before the justice, and went to trial without any objection, on the part of either of the defendants, to the affidavits or otherwise. Before the justice, the plaintiff had judgment, and the defendants appealed. In the Common Pleas, Ivers moved to dismiss the cause as to him. This motion was correctly overruled. No ground of the motion appears by the record to have been stated. If there was any defect in the affidavits, or manner of bringing the defendants into Court,'they were [356]*356cured by appearance before the justice, and going to trial on £he merits without making any objection. Perkins v. Smith, 4 Blackf. 299.

Vinton and Miller, for the appellants. J. J. Jones and E. A. Greenlee, for the appellee.

The defendant Ivers then filed a paper, which is called a. disclaimer, as follows: “The said defendant, William Ivers, for answer to said complaint against him, says that he claims no interest in said property; wherefore he asks that as to him said suit may be dismissed.” On this paper he renewed his motion to dismiss the cause as to him, but the motion was overruled, and the paper stricken out. There was no error in these rulings. The paper filed was no answer to the complaint, nor was the fact that Ivers claimed no interest in the property any reason for dismissing the suit against him for a wrongful taking and detention of it.

The cause was tried by a jury, and the result was a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff.

The only remaining question in the case is, whether the evidence sustains the verdict. We can not disturb the case on the evidence. There have been two verdicts for the plain- and it is not clear that they were wrong.

Per Ouriam.

The judgment is affirmed, with costs.

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

Worden, J.

Emerson sued Smith before a justice of the peace, in an action of replevin for a wagon. Afterward, on motion of the plaintiff, and, as we suppose from the statements in the record, on an additional affidavit being filed, Ivers was made a co-defendant. The parties appeared before the justice, and went to trial without any objection, on the part of either of the defendants, to the affidavits or otherwise. Before the justice, the plaintiff had judgment, and the defendants appealed. In the Common Pleas, Ivers moved to dismiss the cause as to him. This motion was correctly overruled. No ground of the motion appears by the record to have been stated. If there was any defect in the affidavits, or manner of bringing the defendants into Court,'they were [356]*356cured by appearance before the justice, and going to trial on £he merits without making any objection. Perkins v. Smith, 4 Blackf. 299.

Vinton and Miller, for the appellants. J. J. Jones and E. A. Greenlee, for the appellee.

The defendant Ivers then filed a paper, which is called a. disclaimer, as follows: “The said defendant, William Ivers, for answer to said complaint against him, says that he claims no interest in said property; wherefore he asks that as to him said suit may be dismissed.” On this paper he renewed his motion to dismiss the cause as to him, but the motion was overruled, and the paper stricken out. There was no error in these rulings. The paper filed was no answer to the complaint, nor was the fact that Ivers claimed no interest in the property any reason for dismissing the suit against him for a wrongful taking and detention of it.

The cause was tried by a jury, and the result was a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff.

The only remaining question in the case is, whether the evidence sustains the verdict. We can not disturb the case on the evidence. There have been two verdicts for the plain- and it is not clear that they were wrong.

Per Ouriam.

The judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 Ind. 355, 1861 Ind. LEXIS 181, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-emerson-ind-1861.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack