Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

32 Ind. 373

Reed v. Sidener

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided November 15, 1869

Indiana Supreme Court · decided 1869-11-15

Suit by Spaugh agáinst Snyder and the appellant on a note for two hundred and twenty-five dollars, executed by the defendants to the plaintiff. Pending the suit, Sidener, the appellee, became the owner of the note by assignment from Spaugh and was substituted as plaintiff. Reed answered separately in three paragraphs, to all of which demurrers were sustained, and Reed excepted. The first and third paragraphs only, are presented in the abstract in this court.

Relies on Russell v. Branham · Clem v. Newcastle & Danville Railroad · Platt v. Scott

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1869-11-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently April 1981

4 state decisions

101869187018801890190019101920193019401950196019701980decided

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 →

Elliott, J.

¶1The only question presented in the case arises upon the ruling of the circuit court in sustaining demurrers to the first and third paragraphs- of' the separate answer of Reed, who alone appeals. There is- no material-difference between these paragraphs; each contains substantially the same averments. They will, therefore, be considered together as presenting the same question.

¶2It is not claimed by the appellant’s counsel' that they present a valid defense to the note on the ground of duress; but it is insisted that the facts alleged show that the note was procured by the false and fraudulent representations; of the sheriffand is,, therefore, void. "We cannot concur *375in this conclusion. It is not denied that Snyder was justly indebted to Spaugh in the sum for which the note was given. It is admitted that Snyder was arrested on a legal order for that purpose in the hands of the sheriff, and that the appellant executed the note as the surety of Snyder, to procure his release from such arrest.

S. Stansifer, for appellant.F. T. Ford, for appellee.

¶3But it is alleged that he was induced to do so by certain false and fraudulent representations of the sheriff, in which he confided.

¶4The false representations relied upon in the answer relate exclusively to the law, and not to a material matter of fact. No principle of law is better settled than that every person is presumed to know the law, both civil and criminal;, and no one can, therefore, complain of the misrepresentations of another respecting it. Platt v. Scott, 6 Blackf. 389; Russell v. Branham, 8 Blackf. 277; Clem v. The Newcastle, &c., R. R. Co., 9 Ind. 488; Louchheim v. Gill, 17 Ind. 139.

¶5Besides, it is not alleged in the answer that the false representations as to the law, and the legal effect of the order of arrest, were made by the authority or procurement of Spaugh, the payee of the note; and there was no such confidential relation existing between the appellant and the sheriff, or between the sheriff and Spaugh, as to make the latter responsible for the misrepresentations of the sheriff; and if the appellant relied upon them, it was his own folly.

¶6The judgment is affirmed, with costs.

/32/ind/373 · .json · Public domain