TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Ledbetter v. Davis

Ledbetter v. Davis, 22 N.E. 744 (Ind. 1889)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Indiana Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
November 20, 1889
Docket
No. 13,823
Judges
Elliott
Citations
22 N.E. 744121 Ind. 1191889 Ind. LEXIS 19
Headnotes
Pleading. — Written Instrument. — Filing of Copy. — Where a complaint alleges the execution of a written lease, the filing of a copy properly designated, which copy is set forth in the record, is sufficient. Same. — Exhibit.—Separate Paragraphs of Complaint. — Where a written instrument is filed as an exhibit to one paragraph of a complaint, and appropriately designated, it need not be set out with each paragraph, for one exhibit is sufficient for all the paragraphs of a pleading. Pbadd. — False Statements as to Quantity of Land. — Reliance Upon. — Where false statements as to the quantity of land are made for a fraudulent purpose, the plaintiff who relies upon them will not be denied a recovery because be acted upon the representations without measuring the land.
Summary
From the Grant 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 — Elliott

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

Elliott, C. J.

— The appellants insist that a written lease is the foundation of the complaint, and that as it is not incorporated in the pleading or filed as an exhibit, the complaint is bad. The appellants are in error in asserting that the instrument is not filed and referred to in the pleading. It is averred that a written lease was executed, that a copy of it is filed marked exhibit “A,” and a copy thus designated is set forth in the record. This is sufficient. Straughan v. Fairchild, 80 Ind. 598 ; Whitworth v. Malcomb, 82 Ind. 454 ; Northwestern, etc., Co. v. Hazelett, 105 Ind. 212 .

Where a written instrument is filed as an exhibit to one paragraph of a complaint, and appropriately designated, it need not be set out with each paragraph, for one exhibit is sufficient for all the paragraphs of a pleading. State, ex rel., v. Brown, 80 Ind. 425 ; Scotten v. Randolph, 96 Ind. 581 ; Hochstedler v. Hochstedler, 108 Ind. 506 .

It is argued that the appellees can not recover damagés caused by their reliance upon the untruthful statements of the appellants, for the reason that by measurement they could have ascertained the truth. There is no merit in this contention. Where false statements as to the quantity of land are made for a fraudulent purpose, the plaintiff who relies upon them will not be denied a recovery because he acted upon the representations without measuring the land. West v. Wright, 98 Ind. 335 ; Dodge v. Pope, 93 Ind. 480 ; Jones v. Hathaway, 77 Ind. 14 ; Campbell v. Frankem, 65 Ind. 591 .

The evidence is not in the record and we can not consider the question whether the damages were excessive.

Judgment affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 13 cases

View all citing references →
1892: 11894: 31896: 11899: 11909: 11912: 11915: 11916: 11919: 11929: 11981: 118922026peak 1894 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Carrell v. Ellingwood423 N.E.2d 630 (Ind. Ct. App. 1981)
  2. Cawston v. Sturgis43 P. 656 (Or. 1896)
  3. Olson v. Laun174 N.W. 473 (Wis. 1919)
  4. Dulin v. Sharp43 App. D.C. 550 (D.C. Cir. 1915)
  5. Mabardy v. McHugh88 N.E. 894 (Mass. 1909)
  6. Speed v. Hollingsworth54 Kan. 436 (1894)

Most recent

  1. Carrell v. Ellingwood423 N.E.2d 630 (Ind. Ct. App. 1981)
  2. Nixon v. Temple Terrace Estates, Inc.121 So. 475 (Fla. 1929)
  3. Olson v. Laun174 N.W. 473 (Wis. 1919)
  4. Wilson v. Robinson155 P. 732 (N.M. 1916)
  5. Dulin v. Sharp43 App. D.C. 550 (D.C. Cir. 1915)
  6. Beck v. Goar100 N.E. 1 (Ind. 1912)

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 10

DepthCaseCited by
Northwestern Mut. Life Ins. v. Hazelett, 4 N.E. 582 (Ind. 1886) 81
Dodge v. Pope, 93 Ind. 480 (1883) 47
Jones v. Hathaway, 77 Ind. 14 (1881) 39
West v. Wright, 98 Ind. 335 (1884) 31
Hochstedler v. Hochstedler, 9 N.E. 467 (Ind. 1886) 29
Campbell v. Frankem, 65 Ind. 591 (1879) 23
Scotten v. Randolph, 96 Ind. 581 (1883) 14
Straughan v. Fairchild, 80 Ind. 598 (1881) 11
Whitworth v. Malcomb, 82 Ind. 454 (1881) 4
State ex rel. Wright v. Brown, 80 Ind. 425 (1881) 2

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