Case ID: ind_33/html/0302-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Ray, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The Indianapolis Piano Manufacturing Company v. First National Bank of Indianapolis.
    
      Pleading. — Promissory Note. — Harmless Error. — In a suit on a promissory note, the complaint alleged that the note was indorsed to the plaintiff by the payee, who appeared and answered, and judgment was rendered against him, though his name did not appear in the complaint as a defendant except in the title of the cause.
    
      Held, on demurrer by the maker, that the omission of the name of the payee as a defendant in the body of the complaint, if error, could not avail the maker.
    Same.— Copy of Assignment. — In a suit on a promissory note by an indorsee, the maker cannot avail himself of the failure of the complaint to set out a copy of the assignment, the fact of the assignment being averred.
    Bill oe Exceptions. — Pleading Stricken Out. — Where a paragraph of a plead- . ing is stricken out, the ruling will not bo examined by the Supreme Court if the paragraph be not brought into the record by a bill of exceptions.
    
      Same. — Motion for New Trial. — Recitals Therein. — Statements contained in a motion for a new trial as to.alleged errors committed by the court will not bo taken as true by the Supreme Court, unless the recitals be shown to be true by a bill of exceptions.
    APPEAL from the Marion Civil Circuit Court.
    
      J. Hanna and F. Knefler, for appellant.
    
      J. T. Dye and A. C. Harris, for appellee.
   Ray, J.

This action was upon two notes executed by the appellant to the order of J. George Stiltz, and indorsed by parties who tvere made defendants to the action, and it is also alleged that the payee indorsed the note to the bank. A demurrer was overruled to the complaint.

• The appellant objects that no where except in the title of the action does the name of Stiltz appear as a defendant. Stiltz however appeared and answered, and judgment was rendered against him. ITe does not appeal, and if there were error, it could not 'avail the appellant. Again, it is said that no copy of the assignment is set out. The fact, however, is averred, and as against the maker the proof of that fact need not be pleaded. The maker of the' notes cannot avail itself of any defect in the allegations against the indorsers. The demurrer was correctly overruled.

The defendant filed certain paragraphs of an answer, which, upon interrogatories being filed by appellee and answered by appellant, were stricken out on motion. This action of the court is excepted to; but the answer is not brought into the record by bill of exceptions, and we cannot pass upon the objection. Fisher v. Ewing, 30 Ind. 130; Ammerman v. Crosby, 26 Ind. 451; Oiler v. Bodkey, 17 Ind. 600. The appellant complains of other alleged errors, which it asserts, in the motion for a new trial, were committed by the court; but no bill of exceptions is filed, and we cannot accept the statements contained in the motion for a new trial as true. McSheely v. Bently, 31 Ind. 235.

Judgment affirmed, with six per cent, damages and costs.