Legal Opinion

Rocap v. Blackwell

Indiana Court of Appeals

Decided January 24, 1923No. 11,466PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDausman, J.

(after stating the facts as above).

It will be observed that the only averment of fact in the answer is that the decedent left a surviving husband. The other averments are pure propositions of law. Since the executor did not stand on the ruling on the demurrer, we will treat it as we are required to treat all such rulings after trial — in the light of the evidence. The one material fact averred in the answer was adduced in evidence and the executor has had the full benefit of that fact. Therefore, the ruling on the demurrer cannot be reversible error.

The common law imposes upon the husband the…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Smyley v. ReeseSupreme Court of Alabama · 1875
  2. Hildebrand v. KinneyIndiana Supreme Court · 1909
  3. Kenyon v. BrightwellSupreme Court of Georgia · 1904
  4. Sears v. GiddeyMichigan Supreme Court · 1879
  5. Ketterer v. NelsonCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1911

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Phillips, Admr. v. TribbeyIndiana Court of Appeals · 1923
  2. Beers v. Indianapolis Forwarding Co.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1963
  3. KIRTMAN, ADMINISTRATOR ETC. v. GallentineIndiana Court of Appeals · 1960
  4. Fortson v. IdenIndiana Court of Appeals · 1966
  5. Schlotterback, Exrx. v. Ort, Exr.Indiana Court of Appeals · 1937

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

Powered by the Exa API