Legal Opinion

Bunnell v. Studebaker

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided November 15, 1882No. 9440PublishedCited by 7 opinions

From the Cass Circuit Court.

1Opinion of the Court

Bicknell, C. C.

— This was an action by the appellant against the appellees to recover damages for unlawfully taking and converting to their own use the plaintiff’s sorrel mare.. The defendant Hodge was defaulted. Studebaker answered by a general denial. The plaintiff claimed the mare by pur*339chase from Holdridge, to whom it was alleged that Hodge had sold her.

The defence was substantially that Studebaker found Hodge in possession of the mare, claiming to be her owner; that he borrowed the mare' from. Hodge to ride home, and returned her to him before suit brought, without having any knowledge…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Jamieson v. Board of Comm'rsIndiana Supreme Court · 1877
  2. Kennedy v. DivineIndiana Supreme Court · 1881
  3. Walker v. BeggsIndiana Supreme Court · 1881

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Lowman v. SheetsIndiana Supreme Court · 1890
  2. McConnell v. HannahIndiana Supreme Court · 1884
  3. Robbins v. SpencerIndiana Supreme Court · 1894
  4. Hadley v. HoodIndiana Supreme Court · 1884
  5. Lynch v. MartinIndiana Court of Appeals · 1926

2 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