Legal Opinion

Quick v. Taylor

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided March 6, 1888No. 13,058PublishedCited by 39 opinions

From the Bartholomew Circuit Court.

1Opinion of the CourtMitchell, C. J.

This was a suit by the administrator of Tunis Quick, deceased, against Marshall Taylor, to re*541■cover a balance alleged to be due on a promissory note payable by the latter to the plaintiff's intestate.

The defendant presented, by way of counter-claim, that the note sued on had been given as part of the purchase price of a tract of land which had been conveyed to him by the decedent in the year 1874. It was alleged that the deed ■of conveyance contained full covenants of warranty, and that the whole purchase price, except one hundred and sixty-six dollars, the balance remaining due on the note…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Water Works Co. v. BurkhartIndiana Supreme Court · 1872
  2. Kansas Central Railway Co. v. AllenSupreme Court of Kansas · 1879
  3. Brookville & Metamora Hydraulic Co. v. ButlerIndiana Supreme Court · 1883
  4. Burk v. HillIndiana Supreme Court · 1874
  5. Shelbyville & Brandywine Turnpike Co. v. GreenIndiana Supreme Court · 1884

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

3Cited by39 opinions

  1. Great Northern Railway Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1942
  2. Macy Elevator, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2011
  3. Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. v. SmithIndiana Supreme Court · 1912
  4. Richard S. Brunt Trust v. PlantzIndiana Court of Appeals · 1983
  5. Howard v. United StatesIndiana Supreme Court · 2012

34 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