Legal Opinion

Benoit v. Schneider

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided May 15, 1874PublishedCited by 6 opinions

From the Cass Common Pleas.

1Opinion of the CourtDowney, J.

When this case was here before (39 Ind. 591), the appeal was dismissed for want of proper parties. The heirs at law of Bishop Luers, and also his successor in the office of bishop, are now made parties.

As will be seen by reference to the report of the case when here before, the action was to foreclose a mortgage executed by Bishop Luers to the appellee’s intestate, Bernard Joseph Force. The defendant answered:

1. A general denial.

2. Payment.

*143. Set-off, setting out the facts particularly.

4. Set-off in a more general form.

A demurrer to the third paragraph, alleging that it did not state facts…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Columbus, Chicago, & Indiana Central Railway Co. v. PowellIndiana Supreme Court · 1872
  2. Fetrow v. WisemanIndiana Supreme Court · 1872
  3. Reeves v. PloughIndiana Supreme Court · 1872
  4. Pattison v. VaughanIndiana Supreme Court · 1872
  5. McAlister v. HowellIndiana Supreme Court · 1873

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Brunson v. HenryIndiana Supreme Court · 1894
  2. Clanin v. Esterly Harvesting Machine Co.Indiana Supreme Court · 1889
  3. Dodds v. VannoyIndiana Supreme Court · 1877
  4. Kirkpatrick v. AlexanderIndiana Supreme Court · 1877
  5. Wilcox v. MajorsIndiana Supreme Court · 1882

1 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