Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

1 Blackf. 59

Lambert v. Blackman

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided July 19, 1820

Indiana Supreme Court · decided 1820-07-19

— Assumpsit on a promissory note. Plea, the general issue. The note was in the French language, but was declared on as if it had been in English. The variance, at the trial, was held immaterial. The damages were laid in the declaration at 300 dollars. The jury gave a verdict for 322 dollars and 28 cents in damages; for which sum, together with costs, judgment was entered during the terra.

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently November 1877

3 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1820-07-19

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Holman, J.

¶1One error assigned is, that the note, being in the French language, should have been set forth in that language, in the declaration. We are of opinion, that the nature and extent of the obligation created by the note, were all that were requisite in pleading, and these are sufficiently set forth in the. English language (1). The entry of the remittitur after judgment, is also assigned for error. A remittitur is most regular *60ly entered before judgment, but it may be entered at any time after judgment, while the proceedings of the term are yet before the Court. And even after a writ of error is sued out, a remittitur may be entered on paying the costs of the writ of error. 1 Sell. Pr. 481. — 2 Sell. Pr. 408 (2).

Tails and Blake, for the plaintiffs.Dewey, for the defendant.Per Curiam.

¶2The judgment is affirmed, with 5 per cent. damages, and costs.

¶3 The instrument itself must be stated in terms, or according to the legal effect. If it be in a foreign language, it may nevertheless be stated as if it were in English, without noticing the foreign language. Attorney General v. Valabreque, Wightw. 9. — Chitt. on Bills, Am. Ed. 1821, p. 456. Aliter, in case of a libel written in a foreign language; there the plaintiff must set forth the original words, with a translation of them showing their application to him. Zenobio v. Axtell 6 T. R. 162. — Per Ellenborough, C. J., in Cook v. Cox, 3 Maule and Selw. 115.

¶4 Even in a term subsequent to that in which the judgment was signed. 2 Arch. Pr. 221. — Usher v. Dansey, 4 Maule and Selw. 94.

/1/blackf/59 · .json · Public domain