History
  • No items yet
midpage
Hyatt v. Mavity
34 Ind. 415
Ind.
1870
Check Treatment
Pettit, C. J.

The appellee, who was plaintiff below filed his complaint in three paragraphs, first, that his decedent, on the 22d day of August, 1864, deposited with appellant’s decedent, six hundred dollars in cash, and that the same is due and unpaid; second, that on the same day there was placed in his hands three notes of thirteen hundred dollars, which he agreed to account for, but did not; the third paragraph is for a horse and cow, worth one hundred and seventy dollars. The defendant filed a written motion to dismiss the suit because the complaint shows on its face that it is a claim against the estate of a decedent, was not filed as a claim, but was commenced by a complaint and summons, as an ordinary action. The motion was overruled, and exception. This ruling is assigned for error, and is the only one we need notice.

This motion ought to have been sustained. The only way to collect such a claim as this, is to follow sec. 62, p. 501, and sec. 66, p. 503, 2 G. & H. See Ratcliff v. Leunig, 30 Ind. 289; Braxton, Adm'r &c., v. The State, &c., 25 Ind. 82; Martin v. Asher's Adm'r, 25 Ind. 237; Pully, Adm’r, v. Perfect, 30 Ind. 379.

The judgment is reversed at the costs of the appellee, with instructions to the court below to sustain the motion to dismiss the case.

Case Details

Case Name: Hyatt v. Mavity
Court Name: Indiana Supreme Court
Date Published: Nov 15, 1870
Citation: 34 Ind. 415
Court Abbreviation: Ind.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.