Fry v. Colborn

Decided February 23, 1897

Indiana Court of Appeals · decided 1897-02-23

<p>Pleading. — Complaint.—Clerical Error. — A mere clerical error in the use of the word “plaintiff” where it. is clear that the pleader in-tended to use the word “defendant” will not vitiate the pleading, but on appeal the pleading will be given the force which the proper word would have given it if the mistake had not been made. p. 98.</p> <p>Same. — Complaint on Account for Goods Sold to Defendants Agent.— A complaint for goods sold and delivered to defendant’s agent, is not sufficient on demurrer without an allegation that the goods were sold at the instance or request of the defendant, or upon his order, or that they were sold upon his credit, p. 99.</p>

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently November 1914

5 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Reversed · Decided 1897-02-23

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Concurring Opinion.

Brack, J.

¶2I concur in the decision, that the complaint was insufficient on demurrer, but I do not think it necessary to decide the dispute concerning the words “plaintiff’s agent.” The entire complaint, including its exhibit, is set out in the opinion of the majority of the court, for the purpose of showing that it alleged a sale and delivery to M. A. Sweeney. It is assumed that the pleader meant to describe him as the defendant’s agent. It is not clearly manifest upon the face of the complaint that he was the defendant’s agent, or that the pleader should have so described him, or intended to do so.