Thompson v. Honey Creek Draining Co.

Indiana Supreme Court

Thompson v. Honey Creek Draining Co.

33 Ind. 268

Indiana Supreme Court·Decided July 1, 1870·Published·Cited by 1 cases

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] out 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] out 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.

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

Pincite

33 Ind. 268 (Thompson v. Honey Creek Draining Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related