George v. Hurst

Citation68 N.E. 1031, 31 Ind.App. 660
Case DateNovember 24, 1903
CourtCourt of Appeals of Indiana

31 Ind.App. 660
68 N.E. 1031

GEORGE et al.
v.
HURST.

Appellate Court of Indiana, Division No. 1.

Nov. 24, 1903.


Appeal from Circuit Court, Sullivan County; O. B. Harris, Judge.

Action by Dennis Hurst against Flora George and another. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Reversed.

[68 N.E. 1032]


S. R. Hamill, A. J. Kelley, and Buff & Stratton, for appellants.
Hughes & Caldwell, C. D. Hunt, J. O. Piety, and Hays & Hays, for appellee.

COMSTOCK, J.

This action was instituted in the Vigo circuit court by the appellee against the appellants upon a promissory note for $450, claimed to have been executed by appellants to the appellee. To the complaint the appellant Flora George filed an answer in two paragraphs; in the first pleading want of consideration, in the second non est factum. The appellant Alice Hunter filed her separate answer in three paragraphs; in the first pleading want of consideration; in the second that she executed the note as surety for her codefendant Flora George, and received no consideration therefor, and that at the time she so executed said note she was, and still is, a married woman; in the third non est factum. Appellee replied to the separate answer of Flora George by a general denial, and to the separate answer of Alice Hunter he filed two paragraphs of reply. The first is a general denial. In the second he admits that at the time said Alice Hunter signed the note sued on she was, and still is, a married woman, but that the note was executed as evidence of a loan of money made by him and paid to her at the time for her own use and benefit. At this stage of the proceedings the venue was changed from the Vigo circuit court to the Sullivan circuit court, in which last-named court the appellants filed a joint answer, in which they alleged, in substance, that at the time they signed the note one Wright L. Kidder was alive; that a note was signed by the appellants, with the name of the payee left blank, at the request of the said Wright L. Kidder; that said note was executed in consideration of the sum of $450, money advanced to the appellant Flora George by the said Wright L. Kidder; that said Flora George was principal in said note, and the said Alice Hunter surety thereon; that subsequent to the signing of said note the name of appellee was written in said note without the knowledge or consent of the appellants. The said joint answer further alleges that on the 8th day of August, 1901, Wright L. Kidder departed this life, leaving as his only heirs at law his widow, Elizabeth Kidder, and two sons, Frank L. and Edson W.; that Edson W. and Elizabeth Kidder were, by the Vigo circuit court, duly appointed administrator and administratrix of the estate of said Wright L. Kidder; that said estate has been finally settled, and the administratrix and administrator finally discharged; that all...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 practice notes
  • Hitz v. Warner , No. 6,828.
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • February 14, 1911
    ...the appellees. Goode v. Lodge, 160 Ind. 251, 66 N. E. 742;Kellner v. Phillips et al., 29 Ind. App. 100, 63 N. E. 877;George v. Hurst, 31 Ind. App. 660, 68 N. E. 1031;Meyer v. Bell, 65 Ind. 83;Moelering v. Smith et al., 7 Ind. App. 451, 34 N. E. 675. Evidence of a custom or usage may be admi......
  • Hitz v. Warner, 6,828
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • February 14, 1911
    ...Elwood Lodge, etc. (1903), 160 Ind. 251, 66 N.E. 742; Kellner v. Phillips (1902), 29 Ind.App. 100, 63 N.E. 877; George v. Hurst (1903), 31 Ind.App. 660, 68 N.E. 1031; Meyer v. Bell (1878), 65 Ind. 83; Moelering v. Smith (1893), 7 Ind.App. 451, 34 N.E. 675. Evidence of a custom or usage may ......
  • John C. Groub Co. v. Smith
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • November 24, 1903
    ...note was indorsed by her, and delivered to said plaintiff in payment of a debt of her husband to Smith; that no part of the consideration [68 N.E. 1031]of said indorsement moved to her, nor did she derive in any way the benefit of any part of the consideration thereof; that said indorsement......
  • Fluty v. State, No. 28254.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • February 27, 1947
    ...43 Ind. 112;Oliver v. Pate, 1873, 43 Ind. 132, 140, 141;Scranton v. Stewart et al., 1875, 52 Ind. 68, 79 et seq.; George v. Hurst, 1903, 31 Ind.App. 660, 663, 664, 68 N.E. 1031. A question presented by the record before us is: Did the appellant give his consent by word or act for his attorn......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 cases
  • Hitz v. Warner , No. 6,828.
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • February 14, 1911
    ...the appellees. Goode v. Lodge, 160 Ind. 251, 66 N. E. 742;Kellner v. Phillips et al., 29 Ind. App. 100, 63 N. E. 877;George v. Hurst, 31 Ind. App. 660, 68 N. E. 1031;Meyer v. Bell, 65 Ind. 83;Moelering v. Smith et al., 7 Ind. App. 451, 34 N. E. 675. Evidence of a custom or usage may be admi......
  • Hitz v. Warner, 6,828
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • February 14, 1911
    ...Elwood Lodge, etc. (1903), 160 Ind. 251, 66 N.E. 742; Kellner v. Phillips (1902), 29 Ind.App. 100, 63 N.E. 877; George v. Hurst (1903), 31 Ind.App. 660, 68 N.E. 1031; Meyer v. Bell (1878), 65 Ind. 83; Moelering v. Smith (1893), 7 Ind.App. 451, 34 N.E. 675. Evidence of a custom or usage may ......
  • John C. Groub Co. v. Smith
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • November 24, 1903
    ...note was indorsed by her, and delivered to said plaintiff in payment of a debt of her husband to Smith; that no part of the consideration [68 N.E. 1031]of said indorsement moved to her, nor did she derive in any way the benefit of any part of the consideration thereof; that said indorsement......
  • Fluty v. State, No. 28254.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • February 27, 1947
    ...43 Ind. 112;Oliver v. Pate, 1873, 43 Ind. 132, 140, 141;Scranton v. Stewart et al., 1875, 52 Ind. 68, 79 et seq.; George v. Hurst, 1903, 31 Ind.App. 660, 663, 664, 68 N.E. 1031. A question presented by the record before us is: Did the appellant give his consent by word or act for his attorn......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT