Maxwell Implement Co. v. Fitzgerald
Indiana Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the CourtDausman, C. J.
(after making the foregoing statement) .
It is urged with much earnestness that the court erred in overruling the demurrer to each paragraph of the answer. However, it affirmatively appears from the record that the verdict rests entirely upon the counterclaim. Therefore, the action of the court in overruling the demurrer to either paragraph of the answer would not constitute reversible error, even if erroneous; and we need not consider the sufficiency of either of those paragraphs.
Counsel also contend that the court erred in overruling the demurrer to the counterclaim. The contract provides…
Also in this document: Dissent.
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Springfield Engine & Thresher Co. v. KennedyIndiana Court of Appeals · 1893
- McCloskey v. DavisIndiana Court of Appeals · 1893
- Fairbanks, Morse & Co. v. NelsonCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1914
- Palmer v. Reeves & Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1909
- Huber Manufacturing Co. v. BuseyIndiana Court of Appeals · 1896
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- McCracken v. HUNTERIndiana Court of Appeals · 1962