State v. Geddes

Indiana Supreme Court

State v. Geddes

1 Smith & H. 290

DecidedNovember 15, 1849

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Smith & H. 290 (State v. Geddes) 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

State v. Geddes, 1 Smith & H. 290 (Ind. 1849).

Pincite

Opinion

Perkins, J.

— “ Had the defendants claimed and obtained oyer of the bond, and set it out in their plea of non est factum, it would have made the bond, as set out in the plea, a part of the declaration, and the plea would have applied only to the bond so set out, not to the bond as described in the declaration ; and upon the trial, the question would have been, whether the defendants executed the bond set out in the. plea, and variances between it and that described in the declaration, could not have been taken advantage of. But in this case, as the plea was pleaded without oyer, the question on the trial was, ‘ whether the deed as described in the declaration, was executed by the defendants.’ 1 Chitt. Pl. 433 — 483; Williams v. Bryant, 5 M. & W. 447. It appears, prima facia, at least, that it was not. Stephen II. and Stephen S. Colms will not be presumed to be the same person. See Kimmersley v. Knott, in the English Common Pleas, reported in the Law Reporter, vol. 2 N. S. 186.”

Judgment affimed, &c.

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

Perkins, J.

— “ Had the defendants claimed and obtained oyer of the bond, and set it out in their plea of non est factum, it would have made the bond, as set out in the plea, a part of the declaration, and the plea would have applied only to the bond so set out, not to the bond as described in the declaration ; and upon the trial, the question would have been, whether the defendants executed the bond set out in the. plea, and variances between it and that described in the declaration, could not have been taken advantage of. But in this case, as the plea was pleaded without oyer, the question on the trial was, ‘ whether the deed as described in the declaration, was executed by the defendants.’ 1 Chitt. Pl. 433 — 483; Williams v. Bryant, 5 M. & W. 447. It appears, prima facia, at least, that it was not. Stephen II. and Stephen S. Colms will not be presumed to be the same person. See Kimmersley v. Knott, in the English Common Pleas, reported in the Law Reporter, vol. 2 N. S. 186.”

Judgment affimed, &c.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Smith & H. 290, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-geddes-ind-1849.