Legal Opinion

Guaga Iron Co. v. Dawson

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided December 31, 1836PublishedCited by 11 opinions

ERROR to the Vermillion Circuit Court.

1Opinion of the CourtBlackford, J.

This was an action of indebitatus assumpsit, brought by The Guaga Iron Company against Joseph Dawson, for goods sold and delivered.

*203The declaration commences as follows: The Guaga Iron Company complains of Joseph Dawson, &c. For that the said plaintiffs, by an act of the legislature of the state of Ohio, were incorporated and made a body politic and rate in law, by the name and title of The Guaga Iron Company, with powers, &c. The defendant pleaded four pleas, but the decision of this case only requires us to notice the third one. The defendant, in that plea, says actio non, because he says…

Also in this document: Per curiam.

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts v. Town of PawletSupreme Court of the United States · 1830
  2. Silver Lake Bank v. NorthNew York Court of Chancery · 1820

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Foster v. . the PeopleNew York Court of Appeals · 1872
  2. Cicero Hygiene Draining Co. v. CraigheadIndiana Supreme Court · 1867
  3. Clark v. American Cannel Coal Co.Indiana Supreme Court · 1905
  4. Hubbard v. ChappelIndiana Supreme Court · 1860
  5. Mayor of Columbus v. RodgersSupreme Court of Alabama · 1846

6 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