Legal Opinion

M'Kinney v. Harter

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided May 30, 1845PublishedCited by 11 opinions

APPEAL from the Decatur Circuit Court.

1Opinion of the CourtBlackford, J.

— Assumpsit brought by Joseph Harter on a promissory note. The declaration alleges that the defendant made his promissory note, commonly called a due-bill, by which he acknowledged himself indebted to the plaintiff, by the name and description of “ The estate of Thos. Eager, *386deceased,” the plaintiff being the administrator of said estate, in the sum of, &c.; and then and there delivered the^same to the plaintiff; by means whereof, &c. Plea, non assumpsit. The declaration as originally filed contained the name of Thos. Edgar, and not that of Thos. Eager. After issue joined, and before the…

Also in this document: Per curiam.

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. New-York African Society for Mutual Relief v. VarickNew York Supreme Court · 1816
  2. Leaphardt v. SloanIndiana Supreme Court · 1840

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Cincinnati, Indianapolis, St. Louis & Chicago Railway Co. v. CaseIndiana Supreme Court · 1890
  2. Greenman v. CoheeIndiana Supreme Court · 1878
  3. Meeker v. ShanksIndiana Supreme Court · 1887
  4. Shaw v. SmithMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1889
  5. Sprankle v. TruloveIndiana Court of Appeals · 1899

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