Legal Opinion

Bennett v. Mattingly

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided February 15, 1887No. 12,806PublishedCited by 35 opinions

From the Marshall Circuit Court.

1Opinion of the CourtNiblack, J.

On the 28th day of October, 1881, Scott Dingman and Matilda H. Dingman, his wife, were the owners by entireties of lot No. five (5) in what is known as East Plymouth, in the city of Plymouth, in this State. On that day they jointly executed to Charles T. Mattingly, the appellee in this appeal, two promissory notes for $300 each, payable in one and two years respectively, with eight per cent, interest from date, to secure the payment of what purported to be a loan to them of the sum of $600, and, on the same day, to further secure the payment of said sums of money, they, the said Scott Dingman…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Davis v. HardyIndiana Supreme Court · 1881
  2. Ætna Insurance v. BakerIndiana Supreme Court · 1880
  3. Petry v. AmbrosherIndiana Supreme Court · 1885
  4. Rosa v. PratherIndiana Supreme Court · 1885
  5. Shaw v. HoadleyIndiana Supreme Court · 1846

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

3Cited by35 opinions

  1. Haynes v. NowlinIndiana Supreme Court · 1891
  2. Sadler v. NieszWashington Supreme Court · 1892
  3. Johnson v. JouchertIndiana Supreme Court · 1890
  4. Lane v. SchlemmerIndiana Supreme Court · 1888
  5. Hunter v. First National BankIndiana Supreme Court · 1909

30 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