Seiberling & Co. v. Rodman
Indiana Court of Appeals
From the Washington Circuit Court.
1Opinion of the CourtRoss, J.
The appellant brought this action against the appellee, to recover the sum of $120, alleged to be due under a written contract, for an Empire reaping machine, sold by appellant to appellee. To the complaint the appellee filed an answer in several paragraphs, and’ to the special paragraphs of the answer appellant replied.
The first specification of error assigned questions the sufficiency of the second paragraph of appellee’s answer. This paragraph of the answer alleges a want of consideration. We think there was no error in overruling the demurrer to this paragraph, inasmuch as it is good as…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Brown v. Russell & Co.Indiana Supreme Court · 1886
- Sohn v. JervisIndiana Supreme Court · 1885
- National Bank & Loan Co. v. DunnIndiana Supreme Court · 1886
- Aultman, Miller & Co. v. SeichtingIndiana Supreme Court · 1890
- Leary v. MoranIndiana Supreme Court · 1886
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Sanderson v. Trump Manufacturing Co.Indiana Supreme Court · 1913
- Aamco Transmission v. Air Systems, Inc.Indiana Court of Appeals · 1984
- Port Huron Engine & Thresher Co. Engine v. SmithIndiana Court of Appeals · 1898
- Flanagan v. ReitemierIndiana Court of Appeals · 1901
- J. F. Seiberling & Co. v. NewlonIndiana Court of Appeals · 1896
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.