Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

9 Ind. 210

Ellis v. Miller

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided June 3, 1857

Indiana Supreme Court · decided 1857-06-03

<p>Where copies of a mortgage and assignment are filed with the complaint, it cannot be objected that the complaint does not describe them.</p> <p>An objection not raised in the Court below is waived, unless it go to the jurisdiction, or to the sufficiency of the facts.</p> <p>If a party appear and fail to except, ho is concluded by the action of the Court; and he cannot better his situation by- a voluntary failure to appear.</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1857-06-03

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently July 1895

6 state decisions

3018571860187018801890decided

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 →

Per Curiam.

¶1Proceeding by Miller as assignee of Purley, against Ellis, to foreclose a mortgage. Default by the defendant. Decree of foreclosure and sale. Appeal to the Supreme Court.

¶2It is here objected that the complaint was insufficient in not fully describing the mortgage and assignment. But copies of them were filed with the complaint. A full description was thus furnished, and defects, as to this point, in the complaint, if they otherwise existed, were removed. This has been several times decided by this Court. Blair et al. v. Davis, at this term (1).

¶3It is also objected that there is a defect for want of parties. But this ground of objection was waived by failing to raise it in the Court below. Collins v. Nave et al., at the present term (2). AH' defects in the complaint were thus waived, except those going to the jurisdiction of the Court, and the sufficiency of the facts stated to constitute a cause of action. Acts of 1855, p. 60.

¶4No exception was taken to any ruling of the Court below; as there was no appearance, there could be none. If the defendant had appeared and failed to except, he would have been concluded by the action of the Court. He cannot better his situation by voluntarily abstaining from an appearance.

¶5The decree is affirmed with 1 per cent. damages, and costs to be taxed to Miller.

¶6 This volume, post.

¶7Ante, 209.

/9/ind/210 · .json · Public domain