TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Watson v. Tindall

Watson v. Tindall, 50 N.E. 468 (Ind. 1898)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Indiana Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
May 19, 1898
Docket
No. 18,382
Judges
Howard
Citations
50 N.E. 468150 Ind. 4881898 Ind. LEXIS 207
Disposition
Affirmed.
Headnotes
Pleading. — Overruling a Demurrer. — Harmless Error. — The overruling of a demurrer to a bad answer is harmless where there was a special finding of facts by the court, and the facts found could have been proved as well under another paragraph of plaintiff’s answer.
Summary
Prom the Harrison 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 — Howard

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

Howard, C. J.

This was an action by appellants to recover undivided interests claimed by them in certain real estate held by appellees. The appellees answered by general denial, and also by special paragraph, to the latter of which a demurrer was overruled. There was a special finding of facts, with, conclusions of law that appellants were not entitled to any interest in the land in dispute.

Much of the briefs of counsel is taken up with a discussion of the sufficiency of the special paragraph of answer. We do not find that any of the objections urged to this pleading are well taken; besides, even if the answer were not good, the ruling would still be harmless. The facts found specially entitled the appellees to judgment in accordance with the conclusions of law; and these facts could be proved under the general denial quite as well as under the special paragraph of answer. See Walling v. Burgess, 122 Ind. 299 , 7 L. R. A. 481; section 1067, R. S. 1894 (1055, R. S, 1881).

The appellants and the appellee Annie M. Tindall are the heirs at law of one Ella Watson, deceased. The facts found show that, in 1884, for good consideration, the said Ella Watson, then owner of the land *489 in controversy, conveyed the same to said appellee, Annie M. Tindall, by warranty deed; and that the consideration agreed upon has been fully paid by said appellee. The evidence is,not in the record, and no good reason is shown why the conclusion reached by the court should not be sustained. Judgment affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

1898: 11927: 11951: 118982026peak 1898 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Hadley v. Kays98 N.E.2d 237 (Ind. Ct. App. 1951)
  2. Continental National Bank v. Discount & Deposit State Bank157 N.E. 433 (Ind. 1927)
  3. Hardison v. Mann50 N.E. 899 (Ind. Ct. App. 1898)

Most recent

  1. Hadley v. Kays98 N.E.2d 237 (Ind. Ct. App. 1951)
  2. Continental National Bank v. Discount & Deposit State Bank157 N.E. 433 (Ind. 1927)
  3. Hardison v. Mann50 N.E. 899 (Ind. Ct. App. 1898)

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 1

DepthCaseCited by
Walling v. Burgess, 22 N.E. 419 (Ind. 1890) 30

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