O'Leary v. Snediker
O'Leary and Another v. Snediker
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Per Curiam.
Suit by Snediker against the appellants to foreclose a mortgage. Judgment for the plaintiff. Three of the notes, to secure the payment of which the mortgage was given, were unpaid. On two of them, judgment liad been recovered by the plaintiff, against O'1 Leary, before a justice *405 of the peace. The question raised is, whether the mortgage can be foreclosed for the three notes, including the two on which judgment had been thus rendered, it not appearing that any execution had been issued upon the judgments, they having been stayed, and the stay not having, expired before the commencement of the suit to foreclose. We are of the opinion that the plaintiff had the right thus to foreclose. This point was substantially determined in the case of Hensicker et ux. v. Lamborn et ux., 13 Ind. 468 .
B. W.. Wilson, for the appellant. James Gavin and Oscar B. Ilord, for the appellee.
The judgment is affirmed, with 5 per cent, damages and costs.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 5 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
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.