Legal Opinion

Busjahn v. McLean

Indiana Court of Appeals

Decided January 6, 1892No. 384PublishedCited by 5 opinions

From the Cass Circuit Court.

1Opinion of the CourtCrumpacker, J.

— This is an action upon a promissory note, executed by one Dunham, as principal, and Busjahn as surety, to Nathaniel Tilton, and endorsed by him after maturity to McLean.

Dunham suffered judgment by default, but Busjahn appeared and filed a plea of non est factum,, asserting that the note had been materially altered, after its execution, without his consent.

The cause was tried by the court, and resulted in a judg- . ment for the plaintiff. The only question presented by the appeal relates to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the finding.

*282It was proved at the trial that Dunham bought a…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Boyd v. BrothersonNew York Supreme Court · 1833
  2. Derby v. ThrallSupreme Court of Vermont · 1872
  3. Duker v. FranzCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1870
  4. McRaven v. CrislerMississippi Supreme Court · 1876
  5. Murray v. GrahamSupreme Court of Iowa · 1870

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Mosier v. MosierSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1926
  2. Spiering v. SpieringSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1917
  3. Hannah v. State BankSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1935
  4. Bradford-Kennedy Co. v. KennySouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1933
  5. Born v. Lafayette Auto Co.Indiana Supreme Court · 1924

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API