Filson v. Heliker
J. L. Filson v. E. Heliker, as Trustee
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:
There is nothing in the record to indicate what answers to his questions were anticipated by plaintiff in error, but, whether they would have been favorable or adverse to him, the evidence was irrelevant under the pleadings as they then stood. It could not become admissible without framing a new issue. If a new issue had been framed it must have included the fact that the mortgagee knew of the assumption of his mortgage by the grantee in the deed, and adopted the contract of assumption at a time sufficiently remote to allow the statute of limitations to run. Without an offer to show these things no request to amend could have been granted.
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 0 cases
No case in this database cites this case.