Legal Opinion

Goldsmith v. Chipps

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided January 5, 1900No. 19,009PublishedCited by 10 opinions

Prom the Vanderburgh Superior Court.

1Opinion of the Court

.Monks, J.

Appellee recovered a judgment and decree of foreclosure in the court below.' Appellants Goldsmith and Goldsmith filed, at the proper time, an answer in abatement in two paragraphs, and appellee’s demurrer thereto was sustained as to the first paragraph, and overruled as to the second. Appellants insist that the court erred in sustaining the demurrer to the first paragraph of the answer in abatement for two reasons: “(1) The- demurrer is a joint demurrer, and challenges the answer in abatement as an entirety, and not each paragraph separately; (2) the form of the demurrer is…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Wayne Pike Co. v. HammonsIndiana Supreme Court · 1891
  2. Blue v. Capital National BankIndiana Supreme Court · 1896
  3. Palmer v. HayesIndiana Supreme Court · 1887
  4. Board of Commissioners v. GruverIndiana Supreme Court · 1888
  5. Hildebrand v. McCrumIndiana Supreme Court · 1885

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

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Washington Hotel Realty Co. v. Bedford Stone & Construction Co.Indiana Supreme Court · 1924
  2. Duffy v. EnglandIndiana Supreme Court · 1911
  3. Spaulding v. MottIndiana Supreme Court · 1906
  4. Darnell v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1910
  5. Wray v. FryIndiana Supreme Court · 1902

5 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