TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Boswell v. Travis

Boswell and Others v. Travis

Boswell v. Travis, 12 Ind. 524 (1859)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Indiana Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
June 16, 1859
Judges
Worden
Citations
12 Ind. 524
Headnotes
Under the statute (Acts of 1855, p. 59), if the plaintiff be absent at the calling of the cause, and fail to answer interrogatories, it is no cause for a continuance, without the affidavit proscribed by the same statute.
Summary
APPEAL from the Tippecanoe Court of Common Pleas.

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

Opinion of the Court — Worden

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

Worden, J.

Action by the appellee against the appellants upon a note and mortgage. Judgment for the plaintiff.

The defendants filed interrogatories to be answered by the plaintiff

Upon the cause being called for trial, the defendants objected to the trial until the plaintiff had answered the interrogatories thus filed; but the Court overruled the objection, and ordered the trial to proceed. There was no evidence before the Court that the plaintiff was absent from the county, except that he was not present in Court. His attorneys offered to swear, but did not swear, that he was absent from the county. The case stands without proof of the presence or absence of the plaintiff, except that he was not present in Court.

W. F. Lane, for the appellants. . S. A. Huff, Z. Baird, and J. M. La Rue, for the appellee.

Under the statute of 1855 (Acts of 1855, p. 59), in the absence of the plaintiff, his failure to answer the interrogatories was no cause of continuance, without an- affidavit as prescribed by that act, and such affidavit was not filed. If the plaintiff was present, the.defendants having taken a rule against him to answer the interrogatories, should have proceeded to enforce the same as prescribed by the statute, and his failur'e to answer, in the absence of cause shown, was no ground for a continuance. Rice v. Derby, 7 Ind. R. 649 (1) .

Whether the plaintiff was present or absent, there was no error in the ruling of the Court.

Per Curiam.

The judgment is affirmed with 5 per cent, damages and costs.

See Cleveland v. Hughes, ante, 512.

How later courts describe this case

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

1860–1861: 11874–1875: 118602026peak 1860 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Meredith v. Lackey16 Ind. 1 (1860)
  2. Alexander v. Alexander48 Ind. 559 (1874)

Most recent

  1. Alexander v. Alexander48 Ind. 559 (1874)
  2. Meredith v. Lackey16 Ind. 1 (1860)

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 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

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