Legal Opinion

Russell v. Stoner

Indiana Court of Appeals

Decided September 14, 1897No. 2,258PublishedCited by 4 opinions

Prom the Marion Superior Court.

1Opinion of the Court

Comstock, J. —

Appellant was plaintiff below. The complaint is in two paragraphs. The first alleges that; *544Annie M. Stoner, appellee, in 1890, purchased from appellant, through her husband, Abraham L. Stoner, acting as her agent, certain material for use in building a house, on her separate real estate. The second contains substantially the averments of the first, with the additional allegation that appellee, Annie M. Stoner, after said material had been used in her house, promised appellant that she would pay therefor, and that, relying upon said promise, he had allowed the time to expire…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Darnell v. SalleeIndiana Court of Appeals · 1893
  2. Chicago & Indiana Coal Railway Co. v. De BaumIndiana Court of Appeals · 1891
  3. Stanley v. HollidayIndiana Supreme Court · 1892
  4. Taylor v. McGrathIndiana Court of Appeals · 1894
  5. Lewis v. State ex rel. DailyIndiana Court of Appeals · 1892

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Lauter v. DuckworthIndiana Court of Appeals · 1897
  2. Hitz v. WarnerIndiana Court of Appeals · 1911
  3. Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. v. KephertIndiana Court of Appeals · 1916
  4. Glaser v. Williamsburg City Fire InsuranceIndiana Court of Appeals · 1920

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

Powered by the Exa API