Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

16 Ind. 428

Simpson v. Wilson

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided June 14, 1861

Indiana Supreme Court · decided 1861-06-14

<p>In a proceeding to obtain execution upon a judgment, under 2 R. S., § 406, p. 129, the written notice, showing the names of the parties, the date and amount of the judgment, &c., is a sufficient complaint.</p> <p>On the hearing of such an application, the ex parte affidavit of the plaintiff should not be received; he should be examined orally, under oath.</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1861-06-14

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently August 1980

4 state decisions

201861187018801890190019101920193019401950196019701980decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Ouriam.

¶1In October, 1853, Charles G. Wilson obtained judgment against Green T. Simpson, in the Henry Common Pleas. In June, 1859, said Wilson notified Simpson to appear to a motion that he, said Wilson, was going to make, to obtain execution against him on the judgment, under 2 E. S., § 406, p. 129. The notice stated in whose favor the judgment was, when rendered, its amount, &c. On the hearing, the plaintiff, Wilson, filed his affidavit that the judgment had not been paid. The Court ordered execution to issue. Simpson, at the proper time, and in the proper manner, raised these two questions: 1. That a complaint, as in ordinary suits, should have been filed. We think the notice was a sufficient complaint. 2. That the ex parte affidavit of the plaintiff was not the proper proof of the non-payment of the judgment. We think the party should have been sworn on the hearing.

¶2The judgment is reversed, with costs. Cause remanded, &c.

/16/ind/428 · .json · Public domain