Smith v. Lamont

Indiana Court of Appeals

Smith v. Lamont

137 N.E. 620, 79 Ind. App. 209, 1923 Ind. App. LEXIS 22

CourtIndiana Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 5, 1923

DocketNo. 11,490

StatusPublished

This text of 137 N.E. 620 (Smith v. Lamont) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Smith v. Lamont, 137 N.E. 620, 79 Ind. App. 209, 1923 Ind. App. LEXIS 22 (Ind. Ct. App. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

Nichols, C. J.

The substantial question which appellant attempts to present in this case is as to whether parol evidence is admissible to show the real consideration in an action for breach of a general warranty.

There was no demurrer to the answer presenting the question nor was there any objection to the evidence sustaining the answer. Had the question been properly presented, it must have been decided against appellant on the authority of Allen, Admr., v. Lee (1848), 1 Ind. 58, 48 Am. Dec. 352; Pitman v. Conner (1866), 27 Ind. 337; Fitzer v. Fitzer (1868), 29 Ind. 468; Lowry v. Downey (1898), 150 Ind. 364, 50 N. E. 79; and numer[210]*210ous other cases, including Evans v. Bolley (1923), ante 196, 137 N. E. 619.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Nichols, C. J.

The substantial question which appellant attempts to present in this case is as to whether parol evidence is admissible to show the real consideration in an action for breach of a general warranty.

There was no demurrer to the answer presenting the question nor was there any objection to the evidence sustaining the answer. Had the question been properly presented, it must have been decided against appellant on the authority of Allen, Admr., v. Lee (1848), 1 Ind. 58, 48 Am. Dec. 352; Pitman v. Conner (1866), 27 Ind. 337; Fitzer v. Fitzer (1868), 29 Ind. 468; Lowry v. Downey (1898), 150 Ind. 364, 50 N. E. 79; and numer[210]*210ous other cases, including Evans v. Bolley (1923), ante 196, 137 N. E. 619.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

137 N.E. 620, 79 Ind. App. 209, 1923 Ind. App. LEXIS 22, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-lamont-indctapp-1923.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack