TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Clark v. Spears

Clark v. Spears, 8 Blackf. 302 (1846)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Indiana Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
December 21, 1846
Judges
Blackford
Citations
8 Blackf. 3021846 Ind. LEXIS 175
Headnotes
In a suit on the assignment of a promissory note, the declaration stated that the term of the Court at which the plaintiff had obtained judgment against the maker, was adjourned on the 7th of September, 1839, and that a fi. fa. issued on the judgment on the 21st of the same month. Held, that the declaration showed, prima facie, sufficient diligence in taking out execution.
Summary
APPEAL from the Tippecanoe Circuit Court.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Blackford

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Blackford, J.

This was an action of assumpsit brought by Clark, assignee, against Spears, assignor, of a promissory note. The declaration contains two counts.1 Tire first count alleges that the note was made by Taylor and Smith to Marshall, indorsed by the payee to Sumner, by the latter to the defendant, and by the defendant to the plaintiff; that the plaintiff indorsed the note to Mains ; that the latter obtained judgment against the makers of the note at the August term, 1839, of the Tippecanoe Circuit Court, which was the first term after the assignment of the note to the plaintiff; that the said term was not adjourned until the 7th of September, 1839; that, on the 21st of the same month of September, Mains sued out a fieri facias on the judgment, which was returned “No goods or chattels, lands or tenements;” that the. plaintiff received back the note from Mains, &c.; by *303 means whereof, &c. The second count is substantially the same with the first. < R. A. Chandler and D. Mace, for the appellant. Z. Baird, for the appellee.

General demurrer to each of the counts, and judgment for the defendant.

The declaration is objected to on the ground, that the execution was not issued on the judgment against the makers of the note in time. The Court adjourned on the 7th of September, 1839, and the execution issued on the 21st of the same month. This shows, prima facie, sufficient diligence in taking out execution. If the defendant can show that he sustained a loss by the delay in the issuing of the execution, he will have the right to do so. Dorsey v. Madlock et al. 7 Blackf. 113. — Nance v. Dunlavy, Id. 172 . The demurrer should have been overruled.

Per Curiam.

The judgment is reversed with costs. Cause remanded, &c.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1872–1873: 11890–1891: 118722026peak 1872 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Roberts v. Masters40 Ind. 461 (1872)
  2. Thompson v. Campbell23 N.E. 267 (Ind. 1890)

Most recent

  1. Thompson v. Campbell23 N.E. 267 (Ind. 1890)
  2. Roberts v. Masters40 Ind. 461 (1872)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Dorsey v. Hadlock, 7 Blackf. 113 (1844) 4

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list