Legal Opinion

McCormick Harvesting Machine Co. v. Glidden

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided April 3, 1884No. 10,708PublishedCited by 3 opinions

From the Henry Circuit Court.

1Opinion of the CourtElliott, J.

The appellant insists that the third paragraph of the appellee’s answer is bad, for the reason that it fails to’ *448set forth a copy of the written instrument on which it is founded. The answer contains this statement: “The plaintiff represented, covenanted and warranted by its written agreement, a copy of which is herewith filed and made part hereof,” but no copy of the agreement was filed with the answer. In Brown v. State, ex rel., 44 Ind. 222, it was said: “The statute is imperative that the instrument or a copy .of it must be filed with the pleading; alleging that it is filed is not enough.…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Peoria Marine & Fire Insurance v. WalserIndiana Supreme Court · 1864
  2. Friddle v. CraneIndiana Supreme Court · 1879
  3. Brown v. State ex rel. BrownIndiana Supreme Court · 1873
  4. Carper v. KittIndiana Supreme Court · 1880
  5. Reed v. BroadbeltIndiana Supreme Court · 1879

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Miller v. BottenbergIndiana Supreme Court · 1895
  2. Thompson v. RechtIndiana Supreme Court · 1902
  3. State ex rel. Myers v. AdamsIndiana Court of Appeals · 1896

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

Powered by the Exa API