TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Eigenmann v. Backof

Eigenmann v. Backof, 56 Ind. 594 (1877)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Indiana Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
May 15, 1877
Judges
Biddle
Citations
56 Ind. 594
Headnotes
Pleading.—Complaint on Promissory Note.—Sufficiency of.—Failure to File Copy.— Verdict.—Supreme Court.—In an action upon a promissory note, a failure to file a copy thereof with the complaint is ground for demurrer; but, if no demurrer therefor be filed, such defect will be healed by the verdict, and the sufficiency of the complaint can not, for that defect, be called in question, on appeal to the Supreme Court.
Summary
From the Spencer 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 — Biddle

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

Biddle, J.

Complaint on a promissory note, made by the appellants to the appellee.

Answer: General denial.

Trial by the court; finding for the appellee; motion fora new trial overruled; exception; judgment; appeal. Assignments of error:

1st. Overruling the motion for a new trial; and,

2d. Insufficiency of the complaint.

Eb demurrer had been filed to the complaint. The ground alleged against it under the assignment is, that a copy of the note was not filed with it. This is true, although the complaint states that such copy was filed, and would have been good ground for a demurrer; but the defect is healed by the verdict. This point has been *595 directly settled in the case of Westfall v. Stark, 24 Ind. 377 . The doctrine of common law intendment after verdict, and the construction of section 101, 2 R. S. 1876, p. 83, have been too frequently decided, and the reasons given, to need repeating here. Tomlinson v. Hamilton, 27 Ind. 139 ; Howorth v. Scarce, 29 Ind. 278 ; The Indianapolis, etc., R. R. Co. v. Petty, 30 Ind. 261 ; Brownlee v. Kenneipp, 41 Ind. 216; Gander v. The State, 50 Ind. 539 . Besides, we have, in the present case,, not only the common, law intendment and the statute to aid us, hut the evidence is all before us, and the first thing we find in it is the promissory note described in the complaint. This proves the wisdom of the common law rule and of the section cited. Russell v. Russell, 48 Ind. 456 .

The appellants also insist that the amount of the finding is excessive. ¥e have examined the evidence in reference to this point, and are of opinion that it fully sustains the finding.

The judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Petition for a rehearing overruled.

How later courts describe this case

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

1878–1879: 21880–1881: 21884–1885: 11886–1887: 21898–1899: 11900–1901: 118782026peak 1878 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Indianapolis & Vincennes Railroad v. McCaffery72 Ind. 294 (1880)
  2. Owen School Township v. Hay8 N.E. 220 (Ind. 1886)
  3. Scott v. Zartman61 Ind. 328 (1878)
  4. Toledo, Wabash & Western R. W. Co. v. Stevens63 Ind. 337 (1878)
  5. Hasseld v. Seyfort5 N.E. 675 (Ind. 1886)
  6. Pennsylvania Co. v. Rusie95 Ind. 236 (1884)

Most recent

  1. State Building & Loan Ass'n v. Brackin62 N.E. 91 (Ind. Ct. App. 1901)
  2. Kenner v. Whitelock53 N.E. 232 (Ind. 1899)
  3. Owen School Township v. Hay8 N.E. 220 (Ind. 1886)
  4. Hasseld v. Seyfort5 N.E. 675 (Ind. 1886)
  5. Pennsylvania Co. v. Rusie95 Ind. 236 (1884)
  6. Beal v. State ex rel. Beal77 Ind. 231 (1881)

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 7

DepthCaseCited by
Westfall v. Stark, 24 Ind. 377 (1865) 22
Indianapolis, Pittsburgh, & Cleveland R.R. v. Petty, 30 Ind. 261 (1868) 21
Howorth v. Scarce, 29 Ind. 278 (1868) 12
Russell v. Russell, 48 Ind. 456 (1874) 10
Brownlee v. Kenneipp, 41 Ind. 216 (1872) 8
Gander v. State ex rel. Rasure, 50 Ind. 539 (1875) 8
Tomlinson v. Hamilton, 27 Ind. 139 (1866) 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