Legal Opinion

Griesel v. Schmal

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided November 15, 1876PublishedCited by 2 opinions

From the Lake Circuit Court.

1Opinion of the CourtBiddEe, J.

Complaint by appellee, against appellant, as follows:

“ The plaintiff complains of the defendant and says, that he is the duly appointed receiver of the late firm of Krost & Horst, brewers, in Crown Point, Indiana, consisting of John Krost and Joseph Horst; that he was authorized and directed to sue and collect the debts due the said firm. That the defendant herein is indebted to said plaintiff,” etc. The remaining part of the complaint is in the usual' form of a common count for money had and received.

Answer and reply. No question below was made on the pleadings. Trial by jury; verdict for…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Krutz v. CraigIndiana Supreme Court · 1876
  2. Toledo, Wabash & Western Railway Co. v. MilliganIndiana Supreme Court · 1876
  3. Harris v. RiversIndiana Supreme Court · 1876
  4. Spahr v. NicklausIndiana Supreme Court · 1875
  5. Gander v. State ex rel. RasureIndiana Supreme Court · 1875

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Ex parte SmithCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1887
  2. Garver v. KentIndiana Supreme Court · 1880

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API