Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

6 Blackf. 167

Spears v. Clark

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided May 15, 1842

Indiana Supreme Court · decided 1842-05-15

<p>Bill of Exceptions.—A bill of exceptions, taken in a suit on the assignment of a promissory note, stated that the plaintiff produced certain evidence, viz., the following note and indorsement. (Insert said note and indorsement.) Held, that the bill did not show that the note and assignment, under which the plaintiff claimed, were produced at the trial'.(a)</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1842-05-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently June 1891

6 state decisions

30184218501860187018801890decided

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 →

Blackford J.

¶1Assumpsit brought by Clark against Spears on the assignment of a promissory note. The declaration describes the note as having been made by Taylor and Smith to Marshall, indorsed by the payee to Sumner, by the latter to Spears, and by Spears, who is the defendant, to the plaintiff. The declaration also states that the plaintiff indorsed the note to Mains; that the latter sued the makers and obtained judgment, on which & fieri facias was issued and returned no property found; that the plaintiff paid the amount of the note to Mains, and received back the note, &e. Plea, the general issue. The cause was submitted to the Court, and judgment rendered for the plaintiff.

¶2A bill of exceptions was filed by the defendant.. The bill, after stating the defendant’s admission of the judgment obtained by Mains, the execution, return, &c., proceeded as follows: "And the following is the only evidence produced by the plaintiff, viz., the following promissory note, with the following indorsements thereon, to wit, (insert said note and said indorsements thereon); and that Robert A. Ghandler, as attorney of said Clark, a short time after said return had been made,- presented said note to the defendant for payment, &c.”

¶3The bill of exceptions, which professes to contain all the plaintiff’s evidence, does not show that the note and indorse-ments under which the plaintiff claimed, were produced at the trial. This omission is fatal. Arnold v. Sturges, Nov. term, 1839. The words in the bill, “ insert said note and said in-dorsements thereon, amount to nothing.

¶4Per Curiam.—The judgment is reversed with costs. Canse, remanded, &c.

/6/blackf/167 · .json · Public domain