Case Name: Rairden et al. v. Winstandley
Court: Supreme Court of Indiana
Jurisdiction: Indiana
Decision Date: 1885-01-24
Citations: 99 Ind. 600
Docket Number: No. 11,798
Parties: Rairden et al. v. Winstandley.
Judges: 
Reporter: Indiana Reports
Volume: 99
Pages: 600–600

Head Matter:
No. 11,798.
Rairden et al. v. Winstandley.
Filed Jan. 24, 1885.
Pleading. — Promissory Note. — Exhibit.—Defect not Cured by Verdict. — Where a complaint on a promissory note does not set out such note, nor aver that a copy is filed with the pleading, it is bad on demurrer, and if objection is made by demurrer the defect is not cured by verdict.
From the Lawrence Circuit Court.
W. II. Martin, for appellants.
M. F. Dunn and G. G. Dunn, for appellee.

Opinion:
Elliott, J. —
The second paragraph of the appellee's complaint counts upon a promissory note alleged to have been executed by the appellants, but the note is not identified nor in any way referred to as forming a part of the pleading. It is not stated that a copy is filed with the complaint, nor is any reference made to it except to give a general description of its legal tenor and effect. As it is not averred that a copy of the note is filed with the pleading, and as it is not set out therein, it must be held that the court erred in overruling the appellants' demurrer. This is not a case where the pleader can invoke aid from the rule 'that a verdict will cure a defect, for the reason that the objection was presented by demurrer prior to the verdict. Price v. Grand Rapids, etc., R. R. Co., 13 Ind. 58; Hiatt v. Goblt, 18 Ind. 494; Stafford v. Davidson, 47 Ind. 319; Cook v. White, 47 Ind. 104; Sinker, Davis & Co. v. Fletcher, 61 Ind. 276; Williams v. Osbon, 75 Ind. 280; Rogers v. State, ex rel., 78 Ind. 329.
Judgment reversed.