Barickman v. Kuykendall
Indiana Supreme Court
ERROR to the Knox Circuit Court.
1Opinion of the CourtBlackford, J.
Indebitatus assumpsit. The declaration alleges that Kuykendall, the defendant’s intestate, being indebted to Harness, the plaintiff’s intestate, for money lent, money paid, and money had and received, promised to pay, &c. Pleas, 1, That the defendant did not assume, &c. 2, *24That the intestate full}' paid, &c. Replication to the second, plea, that the defendant did not fully pay, &c.
The following are the facts proved on the trial: Harness contracted, by parol, with N. Kuykendall for the purchase of a tract of land, for which he was to pay Kuykendall $900. He made a payment of $500,and took a…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Peters v. GoochIndiana Supreme Court · 1838
3Cited by24 opinions
- Wallace v. LongIndiana Supreme Court · 1886
- McCracken v. City of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1860
- Johnson v. GrangerTexas Supreme Court · 1879
- Krutz v. CraigIndiana Supreme Court · 1876
- Pulse v. MillerIndiana Supreme Court · 1881
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.