Legal Opinion
Castle v. Hutchinson
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Indiana
Decided November 10, 1885PublishedCited by 7 opinions
At Law. Motion to strike out cross-complaint and parts of answer.
1Opinion of the CourtWoods, J.
A cross-complaint is not permissible in a common-law action. The second paragraph of answer contains a clause to the effect that the notes in suit were made in Indiana, were given for a patent-right, and do not contain in their body the words ‘‘given for a patent-right,” as required by law. The statute referred to is section 6055, Eev. St. Ind., 1881, which reads as follows:
“Any person who may take any obligation in writing for which any patent-right, or right claimed by him or her to be a patent-right, shall form the whole or any part of the consideration, shall, before it is signed by the…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Patterson v. KentuckySupreme Court of the United States · 1879
- Fry v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1878
- Toledo Agricultural Works v. WorkIndiana Supreme Court · 1880
- Grover & Baker Sewing Machine Co. v. ButlerIndiana Supreme Court · 1876
- Helm v. First National BankIndiana Supreme Court · 1873
3Cited by7 opinions
- J. H. Clark Co. v. RiceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1906
- Woods v. CarlSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1905
- Union County Nat. Bank of Liberty, Ind. v. Ozan Lumber Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Arkansas · 1904
- Ozan Lumber Co. v. Union County Nat. Bank of LibertyCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1906
- Pegram v. American Alkali Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania · 1903
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.