Legal Opinion

McCormick Harvesting Machine Co. v. Gray

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided February 12, 1885No. 11,833PublishedCited by 28 opinions

From the Pulaski Circuit Court.

1Opinion of the Court

Black, C.

Action by the appellant against the appellee upon two promissory notes, executed June 30th, 1881, by the latter to the former. Answer in two paragraphs. The overruling of the plaintiff’s motion to separate each of these paragraphs into two paragraphs is assigned as error; but the *287grounds of suck a motion with an exception to the ruling thereon not being shown by bill of exceptions, this assignment will not be further noticed.

The plaintiff’s demurrer to each paragraph of the answer, assigning want of shfficient facts, was overruled. The plaintiff replied by general denial. The cause…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Indianapolis & St. Louis Railroad v. StoutIndiana Supreme Court · 1876
  2. Bauer v. City of IndianapolisIndiana Supreme Court · 1884
  3. Reynolds v. BaldwinIndiana Supreme Court · 1884

3Cited by28 opinions

  1. Brower v. NellisIndiana Court of Appeals · 1893
  2. City of Indianapolis v. KeeleyIndiana Supreme Court · 1906
  3. McCormick Harvesting Machine Co. v. GrayIndiana Supreme Court · 1888
  4. Smith v. BordenIndiana Supreme Court · 1903
  5. Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati & Indianapolis Railway Co. v. AsburyIndiana Supreme Court · 1889

23 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