76 Ind. App. 69 | Ind. Ct. App. | 1921
This action was instituted to recover on a subscription to the Huntington County War Chest, and resulted in a judgment for $200. The errors assigned are (1) In overruling the demurrer to the second paragraph of reply to the sixth paragraph of answer, and (2) in the conclusion of law.
Upon the facts, the court stated as a conclusion of law that the plaintiffs are entitled to judgment against the defendant in the sum of $200.
In view of the record in this case the ruling on the demurrer could not constitute reversible error even if erroneous. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Downey (1897), 18 Ind. App. 140, 145, 47 N. E. 494; Cox V. Hayes (1897), 18 Ind. App. 220, 226, 47 N. E. 844; Tulley v. Citizens’ State Bank (1897), 18 Ind. App. 240, 47 N. E. 850; Scanlin v. Stewart (1894), 138 Ind. 574, 37 N. E. 401, 38 N. E. 401.
Under the second assignment of error, counsel contend that there was no consideration for appellant’s promise. The contention cannot be sustained. Mechanieville War Chest v. Butterfield (1920), 181 N. Y. Supp. 428, 110 Misc. Rep. 257; Mechanieville War Chest v. Ryan (1920), 181 N. Y. Supp. 576, 110 Misc. Rep. 448; Presbyterian Board of Foreign Missions v. Smith (1904), 209 Pa. St. 361, 58 Atl. 689; Irwin v. Webster (1897), 56 Ohio St. 9, 46 N. E. 63, 60 Am. St. 727, 36
Judgment affirmed.