Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

9 Ind. 209

Collins v. Nave

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided June 3, 1857

Indiana Supreme Court · decided 1857-06-03

<p>Complaint demurred to on the ground that it did not state facts sufficient, &e. Demurrer overruled, exception, and appeal. The only objection made in this Court is, that there was a defect of parties plaintiff. Held, that the objection could not be raised.</p>

Relies on Prescott v. Hull · Slaughter v. Foust

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1857-06-03

How this case has been cited

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently October 1896

11 state decisions

5018571860187018801890decided

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 →

Perkins J.

¶1Suit by the assignees upon an assigned account. Demurrer to the complaint overruled, and exception taken. Issues of fact formed, trial, and judgment rendered for the plaintiffs.

¶2The only ground of objection to the complaint set out in the demurrer was, that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The only question raised by counsel upon the complaint in this Court is: “Can the *210plaintiffs, by reason of the assignment of the account to them by Pitts, maintain an action thereon against the defendants in their own names (1)?” We think this is a question the demurrer did not present. The demurrer went simply to the sufficiency of the facts stated in the complaint to constitute a cause of action, conceding the parties to the suit to be unobjectionable. The attention of the Court would not be called by the demurrer to the question of parties.

H. C. Newcomb and J. S. Harvey, for the appellant.C. C. Nave and J. M. Gregg, for the appellees.

¶3The statute so treats the subject. It specifies six grounds of demurrer. The second is, that the plaintiff has not the legal capacity to sue. The fourth is, that there is a defect of parties, plaintiff or defendant. The fifth is, that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

¶4It is thus plain that the statute does not contemplate raising a question as to parties under the fifth cause of demurrer.

¶5No other objection is made to the proceedings below.

Per Curiam.

¶6The judgment is affirmed, with 5 per cent. damages and costs.

¶7 Upon, this point, counsel for the appellant cited Story’s Eq. Jurisp. s. 1040; Id. s. 49, and note 3; Id. ss. 1057 a, 1057 b; Hammond v. Messenger, 9 Sim. 327; 1 R. S. p. 378, ss. 1, 2; 2 R. S. p. 28, s. 6; 2 R. S. p. 27, art. 1. Counsel for the appellees cited 2 R. S. p. 27, s. 3; 17 Johns. 284, 13 Mass. R. 304; 4 Blackf. 379; 2 Story’s Eq. Jurisp. pp. 381, 393, 394, ss. 1047, 1057, 3d ed. &c.

/9/ind/209 · .json · Public domain