Legal Opinion

Turpie v. Lowe

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided March 10, 1888No. 13,429PublishedCited by 27 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtZollars, J.

The court below'sustained a demurrer to each paragraph of appellants’ complaint. That ruling is assigned as error. The complaint is in three paragraphs. For the purposes of this decision, it will be sufficient to refer to the third paragraph, as that embraces all that is contained in the other two. We set out below a summary of the third ■paragraph furnished by counsel:

3. The said plaintiffs, James H. Turpie and William Turpie, for a third and further cause of action against said defendant, Hugh Lo we, say that, on the 12th day of December, 1885, they were the owners of the following…

2Cases cited34 opinions

  1. Peugh v. DavisSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
  2. Furnas v. DurginMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1876
  3. Hanlon v. DohertyIndiana Supreme Court · 1887
  4. In re NegusNew York Supreme Court · 1832
  5. Hoffman, Burneston & Co. v. MackallOhio Supreme Court · 1855

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

3Cited by27 opinions

  1. Lowe v. TurpieIndiana Supreme Court · 1896
  2. Avalon Construction Corp. v. Kirch Holding Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1931
  3. Bixby-Theirson Lumber Co. v. EvansSupreme Court of Alabama · 1910
  4. Matter of Willows of Coventry, Ltd. PartnershipUnited States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Indiana · 1993
  5. Silverstein v. Central Furniture Co., Inc.Indiana Court of Appeals · 1959

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