Stayner v. Joyce
| Decision Date | 20 September 1889 |
| Docket Number | 13,685 |
| Citation | 22 N.E. 89,120 Ind. 99 |
| Parties | Stayner v. Joyce |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
From the Allen Superior Court.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.
F. S Roby and J. M. Somers, for appellant.
J. A Woodhull and W. M. Brown, for appellee.
This is an action on a promissory note. The appellant, the defendant below, answered, denying the execution of the note under oath. There was a trial, resulting in a verdict and judgment for appellee against the appellant for the amount of the note.
Appellant filed a motion for a new trial, which was overruled, and exceptions, and numerous errors are assigned.
The first alleged error discussed is the admission of the note sued on in evidence before the introduction of evidence explaining the alterations appearing upon its face. The word "day" in the note was crossed out, and the word "year" written above it; also the words "after maturity" were crossed out, making the note sued upon a note payable one year after date, bearing interest from date, instead of a note payable one day after date, with interest after maturity. Upon proof being made of the genuineness of the signature to the note, the court permitted its introduction in evidence over the defendant's objection. This ruling of the court is correct, and is in harmony with the rule laid down in Greenleaf and the decisions of this court. 1 Greenleaf Evidence, section 564; Stoner v. Ellis, 6 Ind. 152; Brooks v. Allen, 62 Ind. 401; Pate v. First Nat'l Bank of Aurora, 63 Ind. 254.
The next alleged error discussed is the refusal of the court to give to the jury instruction number one requested by appellant. There was a request for a special verdict, and a special verdict was returned. It was the duty of the court to instruct the jury as to the nature of the action and the issues, and as to the form of their verdict, but general instructions as to the law of the case were improper.
The instruction asked for by the appellant, and refused by the court, was a general instruction as to the law of the case relating to the issues joined by the plea of non est factum, and was therefore properly refused by the court. It was the duty of the jury to find the facts relating to the signing, execution, and alteration of the note, leaving it for the court to determine the rights and liabilities of the parties from such facts. Toler v. Keiher, 81 Ind. 383; Woollen v. Wire, 110 Ind. 251, 11 N.E. 236; Louisville, etc., R. W. Co. v. Frawley, 110 Ind. 18, 9 N.E. 594; Indianapolis, etc., R. W. Co. v. Bush, 101 Ind. 582.
It is stated by counsel that the court gave no instructions to the jury, but no question is presented relating to such neglect of duty by the court.
Counsel have also assigned as error, and urge as a reason for a new...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Deeter v. Burk
... ... To the same effect are the following cases: ... Goldsmith v. First Nat. Bank (1912), 50 ... Ind.App. 11, 22, 96 N.E. 503; Stayner v ... Joyce (1889), 120 Ind. 99, 22 N.E. 89; Pate ... v. First Nat. Bank (1878), 63 Ind. 254, 259; ... Taylor v. Gay (1842), 6 Blackf. 150, 152; ... ...
-
Deeter v. Burk
...of the note. To the same effect are the following cases: Goldsmith v. First Nat. Bank, 50 Ind. App. 11, 22, 96 N. E. 503;Stayner v. Joyce, 120 Ind. 99, 22 N. E. 89;Pate v. First Nat. Bank, etc., 63 Ind. 254, 259;Taylor v. Gay, 6 Blackf. 150, 152;Garrigus v. Home, etc., Soc., 3 Ind. App. 91,......
-
The Cincinnati, Indianapolis, St. Louis And Chicago Railway Company v. Grames
... ... W ... Co. v. Frawley, 110 Ind. 18, 9 N.E. 594; ... Louisville, etc., R. W. Co. v. Hart, 119 ... Ind. 273, 21 N.E. 753; Stayner v. Joyce, ... 120 Ind. 99, 22 N.E. 89; Sprinkle v ... Taylor, 1 Ind.App. 74, 27 N.E. 122 ... It is ... simply their ... ...
-
Digan v. Mandel
...grantee or obligee." See, also, Palmer v. Poor (1889), 121 Ind. 135, 139, 6 L. R. A. 469, 22 N.E. 984, and cases cited. The cases of Stayner v. Joyce, supra, Talbott v. Hedge, supra, Green v. Beckner, supra, merely hold that possession by the plaintiff and proof of defendant's signature aut......