Legal Opinion

Tescher v. Merea

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided May 7, 1889No. 13,680PublishedCited by 35 opinions

From the Hamilton Circuit Court.

1Opinion of the CourtMitchell, J.

Tescher commenced suit against Merea and Haverstick to recover the amount due on a promissory note, payable in a bank in this State “ to the order of H. Richwine or bearer.” The note had been transferred to the plaintiff by delivery, for a valuable consideration, before due. The material facts were uncontroverted. Richwine had sold and assigned to the makers of the note an interest in a certain patent-right, and had taken the note in suit in payment therefor. The sale was made in violation of the statute which makes it a misdemeanor for any person to sell or barter any patent-right without…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Commissioners of Marion County v. ClarkSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
  2. Collins v. GilbertSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
  3. Sondheim v. GilbertIndiana Supreme Court · 1888
  4. New v. WalkerIndiana Supreme Court · 1886
  5. Carroll v. HaywardMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1878

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by35 opinions

  1. Shirk v. NeibleIndiana Supreme Court · 1901
  2. Schmueckle v. WatersIndiana Supreme Court · 1890
  3. American National Bank v. KerleyOregon Supreme Court · 1923
  4. Reeves v. CorningU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Indiana · 1892
  5. Scandinavian American Bank v. JohnstonWashington Supreme Court · 1911

30 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