Dunkle v. Nichols

Decided April 25, 1885

Indiana Supreme Court · decided 1885-04-25

<p>Pleading.— Written Instrument. — Reference to Copy of Instrument. — A pleading containing tlie statement, “ The said note is in the words and figures-following, to wit (here insert ‘Exhibit A,’ which is filed herewith and made a part hereof,) ” refers with reasonable certainty to the copy of the note filed with the pleading.</p> <p>Promissory Note. — Demand.—It is not necessary to aver or prove a demand for payment of a promissory note, designating the time of payment thus: “ On or before December 25th, 1881, after date, I promise to pay to the order of Mary Nichols five hundred and twenty-five dollars.”</p>

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently October 1913

2 state decisions

Relies on Friddle v. Crane · Carper v. Kitt · Wall v. Galvin

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1885-04-25

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Elliott, J.

¶1The reference to the promissory note upon which the complaint is founded is not made in the most appropriate method, but it is nevertheless so made as to identify the instrument and incorporate it into the complaint. The reference is thus made: “ That said note is in the words and figures following, to wit (here insert ‘ Exhibit A/ which is filed herewith and made a part hereof).” It appears with reasonable certainty that the note is filed as an exhibit and is the one upon which the complaint is based.' This is sufficient. Friddle v. Crane, 68 Ind. 583; Carper v. Kitt, 71 Ind. 24; Wall v. Galvin, 80 Ind. 447.

¶2It is not necessary to aver and prove a demand for payment of a note, designating the time of payment in these words: “On or before December 25th, 1881, after date, I promise to pay to the order of Mary Nichols five hundred and twenty-five dollars.”

¶3Judgment affirmed.