Thompson v. Honey Creek Draining Co.

Indiana Supreme Court

Thompson v. Honey Creek Draining Co.

33 Ind. 268

CourtIndiana Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 1, 1870

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 33 Ind. 268 (Thompson v. Honey Creek Draining Co.) 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

Thompson v. Honey Creek Draining Co., 33 Ind. 268 (Ind. 1870).

Pincite

Opinion

Frazer, J.

The exhibit “ D” annexed to the complaint is the instrument upon which the action was founded. It amounts to nothing, and is wholly insufficient. It is with[269]*269out signature or the affidavit which the statute imperatively requires to give it validity. Besides, it does not even purport to be what the complaint avers. The demurrer to the complaint should have been sustained.

R. W. Sill, S. A. Huff, and B. W. Langdon, for appellant. S. E. Perkins, O. F. Baker, and S. E. Perkins, Jr., for appellee.

Judgment accordingly, with costs.

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

Frazer, J.

The exhibit “ D” annexed to the complaint is the instrument upon which the action was founded. It amounts to nothing, and is wholly insufficient. It is with[269]*269out signature or the affidavit which the statute imperatively requires to give it validity. Besides, it does not even purport to be what the complaint avers. The demurrer to the complaint should have been sustained.

R. W. Sill, S. A. Huff, and B. W. Langdon, for appellant. S. E. Perkins, O. F. Baker, and S. E. Perkins, Jr., for appellee.

Judgment accordingly, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

33 Ind. 268, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thompson-v-honey-creek-draining-co-ind-1870.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack