Legal Opinion

Brackenridge v. Baltzell

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided May 22, 1849PublishedCited by 4 opinions

ERROR to the Warrick Circuit Court.

1Opinion of the Court

Blackford, J. —

Jacob and Charles Baltzell brought an action of indebitatus assumpsit, in 1843, against Thomas I. Brackenridge, for goods sold and delivered.

The defendant pleaded, inter alia, the statute of limitations.

Replication, that the money sued for became due and payable on a running account of trade and merchandise had between the plaintiffs and defendant as merchants, and wholly concerned the trade of merchandise. Verification.

Rejoinder, that the supposed account was not, at any time within five years next before the commencement of the suit, a running account between the plaintiffs…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Toland v. SpragueSupreme Court of the United States · 1838
  2. Mandeville and Jamesson v. WilsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1809
  3. SPRING AND OTHERS v. the Executors of GraySupreme Court of the United States · 1832

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Auzerais v. NagleeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1887
  2. Picker v. FitzelleAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1898
  3. Brock v. WildeySupreme Court of Georgia · 1906
  4. Figge v. BergenthalWisconsin Supreme Court · 1907

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

Powered by the Exa API