Schmidt v. Kreuger
| Decision Date | 31 March 1936 |
| Docket Number | 15,292 |
| Citation | 200 N.E. 713,102 Ind.App. 36 |
| Parties | SCHMIDT v. KREUGER |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
1. PLEADING---Answer---Statute of Limitations---Sufficiency.---An answer alleging the statute of limitations is sufficient if definite enough to enable a person of common understanding to know what was pleaded. p 38.
2. APPEAL---Review---Rulings on Pleadings---One of Several Answer Paragraphs Good.---Where one of several paragraphs of answer was good, and the court could have based its judgment for defendant thereon, it became immaterial on appeal whether other paragraphs were good or not. p. 38.
3. APPEAL---Review---Conflicting Evidence---Preponderance Insufficient for Reversal.---Judgment could not be reversed on appeal merely because preponderance of the evidence was against the judgment. p. 38.
4. APPEAL---Review---Conflicting Evidence---Rule on Appeal.---The Appellate Court will not weigh conflicting evidence, but must affirm the judgment if there is any evidence to sustain it. p. 38.
From Marion Superior Court; Clarence E. Weir, Judge.
Action by Charles D. Schmidt against Christina Kreuger on a promissory note. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appealed.
Affirmed.
J. Fred Masters and Emmanuel E. Buckler, for appellant.
White & Jones, for appellee.
This was an action on a promissory note, the verified complaint of one paragraph alleging that on January 31, 1913, appellee "together with her husband" executed the note herein sued on in the principal sum of $ 400.00 payable to the appellant; that $ 48.00 in interest had been paid thereon, to-wit: $ 24.00 on January 31, 1918, and $ 24.00 on December 9, 1924; that $ 300.00 in interest was due and that plaintiff was entitled to a $ 100.00 attorney's fee making a total sum of $ 800.00. That "Fred Kreuger signer of the note" was deceased and his estate had never been administered upon and that he left no estate. That demand for payment had been made, and that a copy of the note was attached as an exhibit.
The complaint was filed May 10, 1933. Appellee filed thereto four paragraphs of answer, first, a general denial, a second paragraph setting up the ten-year statute of limitations, a third, pleading coverture, and a fourth, of confession and avoidance. Demurrers were overruled to the second and third paragraphs of answer and sustained to the fourth paragraph. Appellant then filed four paragraphs of reply, the first in general denial, the second alleging payment on the note by appellee to bring it within the statute, and a third alleging that the note was executed jointly with her husband, and a fourth alleging the insolvency of the estate of appellee...
To continue reading
Request your trial