Wooster v. Lyons

5 Blackf. 60, 1838 Ind. LEXIS 36
Indiana Supreme Court·Decided November 30, 1838·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Dewey, J.

Assumpsit. The declaration alleges that the defendant, “ by the name and description of Moses Ons,” executed his promissory note, &c. General demurrer to the declaration, and joinder. The Circuit Court sustained the demurrer, and rendered judgment for the defendant.

This decision was right. If a person execute a written promise by a wrong name, he must be sued in that name.

To declare against him in his true name, averring that he [61] executed the instrument by the untrue description is erroneous. If to a suit against him in his assumed name he plead a misnomer, the replication may state the facts, and it will be sustained by the production of the instrument executed in the name in which he is sued. Field v. Winlow, Cro. Eliz. 897.—Gould v. Barnes, 3 Taunt. 504.—1 Chitt. Pl. 279.—1 Stark. Ev. 413.

C. H. Test, for the plaintiff. J. Perry, for the defendant.

Per Curiam.

The judgment is affirmed with costs.

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

Wooster v. Lyons, 5 Blackf. 60, 1838 Ind. LEXIS 36 (Ind. 1838).

5 Blackf. 60 (Wooster v. Lyons) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Meridian National Bank v. First National Bank
33 N.E. 247 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1893)
Wood v. Coman
56 Ala. 283 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1876)
Journey v. Dickerson
21 Iowa 308 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1866)
Gayle v. Hudson
10 Ala. 116 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1846)