Legal Opinion
Jaqua v. Cordesman & Egan Co.
Indiana Supreme Court
Decided April 1, 1886No. 12,445PublishedCited by 7 opinions
From the Jay Circuit Court.
1Opinion of the CourtElliott, J.
A complaint on account for work and labor performed at the request of the defendant, which charges that the defendant is indebted to the plaintiff, but omits to allege that the debt is due and unpaid, is good. Pittsburgh, etc., R. W. Co. v. Thornburgh, 98 Ind. 201; Hartlep v. Cole, 94 Ind. 513; Heshion v. Julian, 82 Ind. 576; Mayes v. Goldsmith, 58 Ind. 94.
The appellee requested the court to instruct in writing, but the appellant did not, and the court gave an oral instruction. The appellant can not have a judgment of reversal on the ground that the court denied his adversary’s request.…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Columbus, Chicago, & Indiana Central Railway Co. v. PowellIndiana Supreme Court · 1872
- Mayes v. GoldsmithIndiana Supreme Court · 1877
- Heshion v. JulianIndiana Supreme Court · 1882
- Pittsburgh, Cincinnati & St. Louise Railway Co. v. ThornburghIndiana Supreme Court · 1884
- Hartlep v. ColeIndiana Supreme Court · 1884
3Cited by7 opinions
- Singleton v. O'BlenisIndiana Supreme Court · 1890
- Bronnenberg v. CoburnIndiana Supreme Court · 1887
- Brickey v. IrwinIndiana Supreme Court · 1890
- Morehouse v. ThrockmortonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1899
- Grau v. GrauIndiana Court of Appeals · 1906
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.