Wright v. Ball

Indiana Supreme Court

Wright v. Ball

22 N.E. 109, 120 Ind. 134, 1889 Ind. LEXIS 370

CourtIndiana Supreme Court

DecidedSeptember 28, 1889

DocketNo. 13,679

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 22 N.E. 109 (Wright v. Ball) 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

Wright v. Ball, 22 N.E. 109, 120 Ind. 134, 1889 Ind. LEXIS 370 (Ind. 1889).

Pincite

Opinion

Mitchell, J.

Suit by Ball and others against Wright on a note, payable in a .bank in this State, signed by the defendant as maker, and endorsed by the payee to the plaintiffs before maturity. The defendant complains of the ruling of the court in sustaining a demurrer to his cross-complaint, in which he set up facts upon which he asked that the note sued on be cancelled.

There was no exception to the ruling of the court of which complaint is now made. There is, therefore, no question in the record.

The judgment is affirmed, with costs.

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

Mitchell, J.

Suit by Ball and others against Wright on a note, payable in a .bank in this State, signed by the defendant as maker, and endorsed by the payee to the plaintiffs before maturity. The defendant complains of the ruling of the court in sustaining a demurrer to his cross-complaint, in which he set up facts upon which he asked that the note sued on be cancelled.

There was no exception to the ruling of the court of which complaint is now made. There is, therefore, no question in the record.

The judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 N.E. 109, 120 Ind. 134, 1889 Ind. LEXIS 370, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wright-v-ball-ind-1889.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack