43 Ind. 172 | Ind. | 1873
This suit was brought by the appellant against the appellees, on the 31st day of January, 1871, and this is the complaint in full.
“ The Cincinnati, Richmond, and Fort Wayne Railroad Company complains of Nathaniel P. Heaston, Lewis L. Heaston, Edward Wright, and Mary Ann Wright, his wife,
‘“$1500.00. March 16th, 1864.
“ ‘ Whenever the Cincinnati and Fort Wayne Railroad Company cause the cars to run on the Cincinnati and Fort Wayne Railroad to Winchester, I promise to pay to the order of said Cincinnati and Fort Wayne Railroad Company the sum of fifteen hundred dollars, without relief from valuation or appraisement laws, provided said road is put in
[U. S. stamp.] David Heaston.
“ The plaintiff states that the said company caused the cars to run on said railroad to Winchester, for the first time, on August 10th, 1870, and that cars have run on the same ever since, and that said road is put in running order to Winchester ; that at a meeting of the board of directors of said Cincinnati and Fort Wayne Railroad Company, held at their office on Thursday, July 5th, 1866, the following resolution was passed:
Resolved, That the name, of the Cincinnati and Fort Wayne Railroad Company be changed to that of the Cincinnati, Richmond, and Fort Wayne Railroad Company.’
“ Which resolution was duly entered upon the records of said company, and said company caused a copy thereof to be recorded in the office of the recorder of the several counties through which the railway runs, and also gave notice thereof by publication in a newspaper of general circulation in this State; that defendants, though often requested to pay said note, refuse to pay the same, and it remains due and wholly unpaid. The plaintiff asks an order and decree of this court, that in default of payment of said one thousand and five hundred dollars and the interest thereon, said real estate, or so much as maybe necessary to pay the same,, may be sold, as lands are sold on execution at law and without appraisement, and the proceeds thereof be applied in payment of said note; and the plaintiff demands judgment for two thousand dollars, and for other properrelief.”
There was a demurrer for want of sufficient facts sustained to this complaint, exception taken, and this ruling is the only assignment of error. Does the plaintiff, by this complaint, show a right to recover ? We think not.
This suit was not brought under sec. 178, page 534, 2 G. & H.; because it does not show that the plaintiff was insane, an infant, or a non-resident of the State; and, therefore, this
The judgment is affirmed, at the costs of the appellant.