Legal Opinion

Pool v. Anderson

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided October 23, 1888No. 13,401PublishedCited by 11 opinions

From the Rush Circuit Court.

1Opinion of the CourtMitchell, J.

This was an action by Thomas A. Pool against William F. Spradling, Daniel G. USTeff and James W. Anderson to recover the amount due on a promissory note, dated August 14-th, 1884, calling for the payment of $850, with eight per cent, interest, due twelve months after date. The note was in the ordinary form of paper not negotiable by the law merchant, and was payable to the plaintiff at Greens-burgh, Indiana. Spradling and Neff signed their names as makers on the face of the note, in the customary manner, while the name of Anderson was written across the back, before it was delivered to the…

2Cases cited29 opinions

  1. Good v. MartinSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
  2. Rey v. SimpsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1860
  3. Houck v. GrahamIndiana Supreme Court · 1886
  4. Kealing v. VansickleIndiana Supreme Court · 1881
  5. Roberts v. MastersIndiana Supreme Court · 1872

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

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Oyler v. McMurrayIndiana Court of Appeals · 1893
  2. In Re WatsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1911
  3. Moorman v. WoodIndiana Supreme Court · 1889
  4. De Pauw v. Bank of SalemIndiana Supreme Court · 1890
  5. Roanoke Grocery & Milling Co. v. WatkinsWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1896

6 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