Legal Opinion

Pierce v. M'Connell

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided June 21, 1844PublishedCited by 4 opinions

ERROR to the La Grange Circuit Court.

1Opinion of the CourtBlackford, J.

— The plaintiffs in error brought an action of assumpsit against James M-Connell, Doctor James ML Connell, and George D. Parmenter, late partners, trading under the firm of James Mi Connell and Co. Doctor James M-Connell pleaded non assumpsit, and made affidavit of the truth of his plea; James M>Connell appeared and suffered judgment by nil dicit; and the writ was returned not served on the other defendant. The issue was tried by a jury, and a verdict and judgment rendered in favour of the defendant who pleaded.

A deposition was offered in evidence on the trial by the plaintiffs, and a part of…

Also in this document: Per curiam.

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Whitney v. FerrisNew York Supreme Court · 1813

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Moore v. ShieldsIndiana Supreme Court · 1889
  2. Pendleton v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1959
  3. Vannoy v. KleinIndiana Supreme Court · 1889
  4. King v. BarbourIndiana Supreme Court · 1879

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

Powered by the Exa API