History
  • No items yet
midpage
Wright v. State ex rel. Howe
1847 Ind. LEXIS 36
Ind.
1847
Check Treatment

DEBT by the state, on the relation of A., against B. on his bond as administrator. The declaration stated that the reíator was a creditor of the estate, but it did not allege that he had recovered a judgment against the estate, nor did it show the nature or amount of his demand. Held, that the declaration was insufficient. Eaton v. Benefield et al. 2 Blackf. 52.

Where in such suit there are several issues in fact, a verdict, in general terms, “ for the plaintiff” may be valid; but a verdict in such case as to only one of the issues, not noticing the others, is bad. Crouch v. Martin, 3 Blackf. 256.—Hanna et al. v. Ewing et al. Id. 34.—Patterson v. Salmon, Id. 131. —Fitch v. Dunn, Id. 142.—Huff v. Gilbert, 4 id. 19. Van Benthuysen v. De Witt, 4 Johns. 213.

Case Details

Case Name: Wright v. State ex rel. Howe
Court Name: Indiana Supreme Court
Date Published: May 28, 1847
Citation: 1847 Ind. LEXIS 36
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.