TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

McEwen v. Hussey

McEwen and Another v. Hussey and Another

McEwen v. Hussey, 23 Ind. 395 (1864)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Indiana Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
November 15, 1864
Judges
Ekazbk
Citations
23 Ind. 395
Headnotes
Practice.—The original complaint is superseded by the amended complaint, and the latter must contain copies of the writings sued on. Same—Demurrer.—Demurrer to the answer reaches back to the complaint, but a defect of parties can not be reached in that way; that objection can only be made by demurrer to the complaint.
Summary
APPEAL from the Sullivan 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 — Ekazbk

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

Ekazbk, J.

Complaint to foreclose a mortgage. It is alleged that the mortgage was made to a third party, to secure a note to him, and that the note and mortgage have been assigned to the plaintiff; but neither the note, mortgage, nor assignment are exhibited as the statute positively requires. An original complaint did purport to have copies of these instruments annexed to and made parts of it. But that complaint was superseded by an amended complaint, and is therefore not a part of the *396 record. 2 G. & H. 273. (See Holdridge v. Sweet, p. 118.) "We can not look at it, though it is improperly, with á number of other papers, copied into the transcript. The ' amended complaint has no such copies.

M. M. May and 8. M. Hamill, for appellants. N. Usher, for appellees.

The questions made by the appellants, as to the nature . of the assignment and the proper parties, are therefore not before us, and we are not disposed to volunteer any opinion upon them. If the plaintiffs shall choose to take the risks, and the defendants shall hereafter bring the case before us in a shape presenting those questions, we will then pass upon them.

Demurrers were sustained to answers of the appellants, and this ruling presents the only question in the record. The appellants do not urge that their answers were good, but they insist that the complaint was bad, and that the demurrers should have been carried back to it. This is true. The complaint is bad for a failure to show copies of the instruments upon which the suit was founded; but a defect of parties can not be reached in that way. That objection can only be reached by a demurrer to the complaint. 2 Gr. & IT. 81, see. 54.

The judgment is reversed, with costs; cause remanded, with instructions to set aside the proceedings subsequent to the filing of the answers, and to permit the plaintiffs to amend their complaint.

How later courts describe this case

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

1871–1872: 11875–1876: 11877–1878: 11895–1896: 118712026peak 1871 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Menifee v. Clark35 Ind. 304 (1871)
  2. Indianapolis, Decatur & Western Railway Co. v. Center Township40 N.E. 134 (Ind. 1895)
  3. Fox v. Wray56 Ind. 423 (1877)
  4. Shepard v. Birth53 Ind. 105 (1876)

Most recent

  1. Indianapolis, Decatur & Western Railway Co. v. Center Township40 N.E. 134 (Ind. 1895)
  2. Fox v. Wray56 Ind. 423 (1877)
  3. Shepard v. Birth53 Ind. 105 (1876)
  4. Menifee v. Clark35 Ind. 304 (1871)

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