Legal Opinion

Burkett v. Bowen

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided April 23, 1889No. 13,662PublishedCited by 17 opinions

From the Marshall Circuit Court.

1Opinion of the CourtElliott, C. J.

The appellants’ contention that the affidavit in proceedings supplementary to execution can not be amended, is met and overthrown by the decision in Hutchinson v. Trauerman, 112 Ind. 21. There is nothing in Pouder v. Tate, 111 Ind. 148, opposing the doctrine of Hutchinson v. Trauerman, supra, for there was no question as to the right to amend.

The affidavit shows that the defendant Milo R. Smith has property in his hands belonging to Daniel R. Burkett, and describes notes, secured by mortgage, amounting to eleven hundred dollars. It is averred that “the sum of eleven hundred dollars, together…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Burkett v. HolmanIndiana Supreme Court · 1885
  2. McMahan v. WorksIndiana Supreme Court · 1880
  3. Hutchinson v. TrauermanIndiana Supreme Court · 1887
  4. Toledo, Wabash & Western Railway Co. v. HowesIndiana Supreme Court · 1879
  5. Burt v. HœttingerIndiana Supreme Court · 1867

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

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Wyman, Partridge & Co. v. Superior CourtWashington Supreme Court · 1905
  2. Kelley v. BellIndiana Supreme Court · 1909
  3. Automobile Underwriters, Inc. v. CampIndiana Supreme Court · 1940
  4. Berry v. BerryIndiana Supreme Court · 1897
  5. Mann v. Russell's Trailer Repair, Inc.Indiana Court of Appeals · 2003

12 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