Pixley v. Van Nostern
| Decision Date | 22 January 1885 |
| Docket Number | 11,933 |
| Citation | 100 Ind. 34 |
| Parties | Pixley et al. v. VanNostern |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
From the Delaware Circuit Court.
R. S. Gregory and A. C. Silverburg, for appellants.
G. H. Koons, for appellee.
Action by the appellee against the appellants upon a promissory note executed by the latter to one Mary E. Warner, and by her endorsed to the appellee. The appellants answered, admitting the execution of the note to the payee named therein, but alleging that she was then, and ever since the execution of the note had been, the owner thereof in her own right; that the plaintiff had not, and never did have, any right, title or interest in or to said note other than as the agent and trustee of said payee; that the note was assigned to the plaintiff for the purposes of collection and not otherwise; and that said payee was the real party in interest. This answer was verified by the affidavit of one of the defendants.
The plaintiff replied by general denial. The court tried the cause and found for the plaintiff, assessing his damages, and rendered judgment accordingly.
All the questions that the appellants have sought to present for our decision resolve themselves into one, which is whether the answer was in bar or in abatement, it being contended on behalf of the appellants that it was the latter. This position of the appellants can not be sustained. Swift v. Ellsworth, 10 Ind. 205; Wilson v. Clark, 11 Ind. 385; Lewis v. Sheaman, 28 Ind. 427; Hereth v. Smith, 33 Ind. 514. We find no error.
It is ordered, upon the foregoing opinion, that the judgment be affirmed at the costs of the appellants.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Seybold v. Grand forks National Bank
...Ind. 438; Bartholomew County Commissioners v. Jameson, 86 Ind. 163; Phelps v. Bush, 15 Ia. 64; Iselin v. Rowlands, 30 Hun. 488; Pixley v. Van Nostrum, 100 Ind. 34; of Commissioners v. Jameson, 86 Ind. 163; Ind. R. R. Co. v. Adinson, 114 Ind. 282. The fact that plaintiff has the legal title ......
-
Ervin v. State ex rel. Walley
...Rawlings v. Fuller, 31 Ind. 255;Smock v. Brush, 62 Ind. 156;Shoemaker v. Board, 36 Ind. 175;Board v. Jameson, 86 Ind. 154;Pixley v. Van Nostern, 100 Ind. 34. It follows that the fourth paragraph of the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, because the st......
-
Ervin v. The State ex rel. Walley
...Fuller, 31 Ind. 255; Smock v. Brush, 62 Ind. 156; Shoemaker v. Board, etc., 36 Ind. 175; Board, etc., v. Jameson, 86 Ind. 154; Pixley v. Van Nostern, 100 Ind. 34. It follows that the fourth paragraph of complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, because the S......
-
Reynolds v. Louisville, N.A.&C. Ry. Co.
...in the face of such an assignment and knowledge thereof. These would have to be made to Skinner. Board v. Jameson, 86 Ind. 154;Pixley v. Van Nostern, 100 Ind. 34;Smock v. Brush, 62 Ind. 156;Rawlings v. Fuller, 31 Ind. 255. The next proposition-that there are no contract relations which appe......