1 Ind. 82 | Ind. | 1848
Assumpsit by the plaintiff in error against the defendant in error, commenced before a justice of the peace. The suit was founded on the assignment of a promissory note, which note was executed by one Cloyd. Plea, the general issue. Judgment of the justice for the defendant. The plaintiff appealed to the Circuit Court. On the trial on appeal, the defendant demurred to the plaintiff’s evidence, and the plaintiff joined in demurrer. Judgment on the demurrer for the defendant.
The substance of the evidence was as follows : The note, on the indorsement of which suit was brought, was produced with the indorsement. The note was dated and was due on the 8th of February, 1841. The indorsement was made on the 27th of May, 1842. It appeared, that on the 27th of October, 1842, the now plaintiff, assignee of the note, sued the maker before a justice of the peace, and on the 8th of November following, obtained judgment. On the next day after the judgment was rendered, a fieri facias issued thereon, and was levied on a horse, which horse was afterwards sold on a pluriesfi. fa. for one dollar; the officer stating, in his return to the last named execution, that there was “ no more property on which to levy.”
The plaintiff proved that he gave a valuable consideration for the assignment. He proved that the defendant,
We think, on this evidence, the plaintiff had a right to recover. It appears by the evidence that, at the time of the assignment, the defendant did not think the maker of the note able to pay it, and did not wish that strict legal diligence should be used by the plaintiff to collect the note from the maker. The defendant told the plaintiff, at the time of the assignment, that the maker was an honest man, that he was under the weather, and to wait awhile and he would get his money. The question as to the admissibility of this testimony of what the defendant said when he assigned the note does not arise, as no objection appears to have been made to its admission. It is clear that a jury might have inferred from that evidence, that the plaintiff’s delay in suing the maker, which was five months from the time of the assignment, was authorized by the defendant. That being the case, no laches could be imputed to the plaintiff on account of the time when this suit against the maker jwas commenced. Nance v. Dunlavy, 7 Blackf. 172. It appears that, after the suit was commenced, one dollar was all which, in consequence of the maker’s poverty, could be collected on the note.
The declaration is objected to, because it shows the delay in commencing suit against the maker, without alleg
The judgment is reversed. Cause remanded, &c.