Snedecker Endorsee v. Test

Jefferson County Court of Common Pleas

Snedecker Endorsee v. Test

1 Tapp. Rep. 144

CourtJefferson County Court of Common Pleas

DecidedApril 15, 1817

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Tapp. Rep. 144 (Snedecker Endorsee v. Test) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Jefferson County Court of Common Pleas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Snedecker Endorsee v. Test, 1 Tapp. Rep. 144 (Ohio Super. Ct. 1817).

Pincite

Opinion

President.

As this demurrer is submitted without argument, we are left to conjecture why it is deemed necessary to insert such averment in the declaration. That it is usual in practice, seems the only reason. It is generally safer and better to adhere to the customary forms in pleading, but such adherence is not in all points necessary. The statute law is one which we are bound, ex officio, to notice; it need not, therefore, be particularly referred to, but it is sufficient for the plaintiff to bring his case within it.- — Judgment for the plaintiff.

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

President.

As this demurrer is submitted without argument, we are left to conjecture why it is deemed necessary to insert such averment in the declaration. That it is usual in practice, seems the only reason. It is generally safer and better to adhere to the customary forms in pleading, but such adherence is not in all points necessary. The statute law is one which we are bound, ex officio, to notice; it need not, therefore, be particularly referred to, but it is sufficient for the plaintiff to bring his case within it.- — Judgment for the plaintiff.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Tapp. Rep. 144, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/snedecker-endorsee-v-test-ohctcompljeffer-1817.