Legal Opinion

M'Henry v. Duffield

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided January 4, 1844PublishedCited by 9 opinions

ERROR to the Clark Circuit Court.

1Opinion of the CourtBlackford, J.

— This was an action of debt in which Duf-Jield was plaintiff, and M'-Henry, Tilford, and Ratts, were defendants. There are two counts in the declaration. The first is founded on an instrument of writing by which, as the count alleges, the defendants acknowledged themselves to be indebted to the plaintiff in a certain sum of money, on settlement, in full for joiner’s work of the New Washington Seminary. The second count is founded on an instrument of writing as follows: “ April 6th, 1842. Due John H. Duffield, on settlement, the sum of 239 dollars (in full) for the joiner’s work of the New…

Also in this document: Per curiam.

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Ballou v. TalbotMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1820

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Winkler v. V.G. Reed & Sons, Inc.Indiana Supreme Court · 1994
  2. Union School Township v. National BankIndiana Supreme Court · 1885
  3. Newman v. SylvesterIndiana Supreme Court · 1873
  4. Second National Bank v. Midland Steel Co.Indiana Supreme Court · 1900
  5. Potts v. HendersonIndiana Supreme Court · 1850

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

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

Powered by the Exa API