Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

82 Ind. 454

Whitworth v. Malcomb

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided November 15, 1881

Indiana Supreme Court · decided 1881-11-15

<p>Pbomissoby Note. — Pleading.—Exhibits—Where, in a complaint on a promissory note, it is averred that the note “is filed herewith,” and in the transcript there appears next to the complaint a copy of a note corresponding to that declared on, it is a sufficient identification of the exhibit. A separate file-mark upon the exhibit is not necessary when - it is attached to the complaint.</p>

Relies on Conwell v. Clifford · Stafford v. Davidson · Carper v. Kitt

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1881-11-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently October 1914

4 state decisions

201881189019001910decided

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 →

Woods, J.

¶1The appellants have assigned for error that *455the complaint does not contain facts sufficient to constitute a •cause of action.

Opinion filed at the November term, 1881.Petition for a rehearing overruled at the May term, 1882.

¶2The objection made to the complaint is stated in the brief ;as follows: “ The complaint avers that ' defendants executed their note which is filed herewith.’ What purports to be the note itself is placed in the complaint, but there is no filing mark upon it, and there is nothing to show that it ever was filed, and no copy of the same is set out in the body of the complaint.” For support of this objection we are referred to Conwell v. Clifford, 45 Ind. 392, and Stafford v. Davidson, 47 Ind. 319. The cases, however, are not in point. In the first the copy of the writing did not appear in the transcript, and it was held not sufficient to state that the writing was filed; “ it must be filed.” And in the other case it was held that a mere filing of the instrument without a reference to it in the pleading was not sufficient.

¶3In this case the complaint contains a sufficient reference to the note. Carper v. Kitt, 71 Ind. 24. The record shows the filing of the complaint, and the transcript of the complaint is followed by a copy of the note.

¶4There may be a filing without a file-mark, which is only evidence of the filing. If the note was attached to the complaint, the filing of the complaint was necessarily a filing of the note.

¶5Judgment affirmed, with costs.

/82/ind/454 · .json · Public domain