50 Ind. 327 | Ind. | 1875
This action was brought by the appellee against the appellant and one Webster, on a joint promissory note made by the defendants to the plaintiff in his representative capacity. Ho account is taken of Webster in the progress of the cause. Harte answered, and as to him there was judgment for the plaintiff.
There are two questions properly presented by the assignment of errors, the sustaining of the demurrer of the plaintiff to the first, and the sustaining of his demurrer to the second paragraph of the defendant’s answer. The first paragraph of the answer is as follows:
“ That he executed the note sued upon, and that it was given
According to Dayhuff v. Dayhuff’s Adm’r, 27 Ind. 158, the court committed no error in sustaining the demurrer to this paragraph of the answer.
The second paragraph of the answer is as follows:
“And the defendant says, for second paragraph of answer and by way of abatement, that the note sued upon is not the property of the estate of Henry Gladhill, but the property of said John L. Houchin in his individual right.”
Nothing is said, in argument, in support of this paragraph of the answer. It is indicated on the face of the note that the note was made payable to the appellee as administrator. It is expressly averred in the complaint that it was given to
The judgment is affirmed, with costs.