Legal Opinion

Markland Mining & Manufacturing Co. v. Kimmel

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided November 15, 1882No. 8257PublishedCited by 27 opinions

From tbe Vigo Circuit Court.

1Opinion of the CourtZollars, J.

This action was brought against the appellees Kimmel and Dinsmore-, and one Francis McKinley, to recover of them, as guarantors, upon a lease executed by third parties to appellant. After the filing of answers by the defendants McKinley died ; his administratrix was substituted, .and thus became a defendant.

In the following summary of the complaint, as we find it in the brief of counsel, the important portions are sufficiently stated.

The facts alleged in .the complaint are, in brief, as follows:

That the appellant, in June, 1877, was an incorporated company, and was the owner of a certain coal…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Miller v. StewartSupreme Court of the United States · 1824
  2. Barns v. . BarrowNew York Court of Appeals · 1874
  3. Dobbin v. BradleyNew York Supreme Court · 1837
  4. Walsh v. BailieNew York Supreme Court · 1813
  5. Kingsbury v. . WestfallNew York Court of Appeals · 1875

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

3Cited by27 opinions

  1. Goeke v. Merchants National Bank & Trust Co. of IndianapolisIndiana Court of Appeals · 1984
  2. Rouse v. Wooten.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1906
  3. Post v. LoseyIndiana Supreme Court · 1887
  4. Weir Plow Co. v. WalmsleyIndiana Supreme Court · 1887
  5. City of Lafayette v. JamesIndiana Supreme Court · 1883

22 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