Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

33 Ind. App. 689

Beasey v. High

Indiana Court of Appeals

Decided October 28, 1904

Indiana Court of Appeals · decided 1904-10-28

<p>From White Circuit Court; T. F. Palmer, Judge.</p> <p>Suit by Thomas J. High against Haney Beasey and others. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal.</p>

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently December 1917

1 state decisions

Relies on Eve v. Louis · West v. West · Wickwire v. Town of Angola

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Decided 1904-10-28

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Black, C. J.

¶1By his complaint of one paragraph the appellee sought to quiet his title to certain real estate. The appellants answered in two paragraphs, the second being the general denial. The appellee’s demurrer to the first paragraph was sustained. At a subsequent day of the term the appellants withdrew their second paragraph of answer and refused to plead further, electing to stand upon the ruling of the court in sustaining the demurrer to their first paragraph of answer; and this ruling is assigned as error.

¶2In such an action the defendant is permitted to give in evidence, under his answer of denial, every defense to the action that he may have, either legal or equitable. §§1067, 1082, 1083 Burns 1901; Graham v. Graham, 55 Ind. 23.

¶3There is no available error in sustaining a demurrer to a special paragraph of answer, though a good defense be shown thereby, in such a case, or in sustaining a motion to strike out such paragraph, where at the time of such ruling there remains in the record an answer of general denial. West v. West, 89 Ind. 529; Eve v. Louis, 91 Ind. 457; O’Donahue v. Creager, 117 Ind. 372; Watson v. Lecklider, 147 Ind. 395; Sharpe v. Dillman, 77 Ind. 280.

¶4The error, if any, in sustaining the demurrer being harmless at the time of such ruling, the appellants could not convert the ruling into an available error by withdrawing the general denial at a subsequent stage of the case. Cincinnati, etc., R. Co. v. Smith, 127 Ind. 461; Smith v. Pinnell, 143 Ind. 485; Wickwire v. Town of Angola, 4 Ind. App. 253; Berkey v. City of Elkhart, 13 Ind. App. 314.

¶5Judgment affirmed.

/33/indapp/689 · .json · Public domain