Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

80 Ind. 497

Dorrell v. Hannah

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided November 15, 1881

Indiana Supreme Court · decided 1881-11-15

<p>Exemption. — Execution.—Replevin.—Complaint.—A complaint to recover personal property, levied on under an execution on a judgment for the possession of real estate and for money recovered for the use and occupation thereof, claiming such property as exempt from execution, is insufficient on demurrer.</p> <p>Beal Estate, Action to Becover. — • Use and Occupation. — Rents.—Tort.— An action to recover real property and a compensation for the use and occupation of the premises, under sections 1050,1058 and 1059, B. S. 1881, sounds in tort.</p> <p>Pleading. — Answer.—Demurrer.—A demurrer to an answer searches the record and reaches the complai»t, whether it was 'objected to or not.</p> <p>Same. — A bad answer is good enough for a bad complaint.</p>

Relies on Martin v. Martin · Menifee v. Clark · Heizer v. Kelly

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1881-11-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently October 2000

7 state decisions

501881189019001910192019301940195019601970198019902000decided

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 →

¶1On Petition eor a Rehearing.

Bicknell, C. C.

¶2— The second paragraph of the complaint was bad, because it claimed exemption under an execution issued on a judgment in an action of tort. Nothing in that paragraph indicated any liability upon contract.

¶3A bad answer is good enough for a bad complaint. The appellee claims that, because the appellant did not demur to the second paragraph of the complaint, therefore it can not be held insufficient; but one of the errors assigned by the appellants is, that the demurrer to the answer was improperly sustained. The answer, however, was good as to the first paragraph of the complaint; and the second paragraph, not showing any liability in contract, and being for that reason insufficient, the answer was good as to it also. The court, therefore, erred in sustaining the demurrer to that answer.

¶4A demurrer to a later pleading searches the.record, and seizes upon the first error in the earlier pleadings, whether such error was originally objected to or not. Menifee v. Clark, 35 Ind. 304; Heizer v. Kelly, 73 Ind. 582. “We read the briefs of counsel, but, as the appeal is tried by the record, we examine that too.” Per Woods, J. Martin v. Martin, 74 Ind. 207.

¶5Per Curiam. — The petition for a rehearing is overruled-

/80/ind/497 · .json · Public domain