Case Name: Davis v. Green et al.
Court: Supreme Court of Indiana
Jurisdiction: Indiana
Decision Date: 1877-11
Citations: 57 Ind. 493
Docket Number: 
Parties: Davis v. Green et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Indiana Reports
Volume: 57
Pages: 493–494

Head Matter:
Davis v. Green et al.
Former Adjudication.—Judgment without Jurisdiction.—Pleading.—Promissory Note.—Summons.—Where, to the complaint in an action upon a promissory note, the defendant answers former adjudication, setting out a transcript thereof, which shows' a judgment by default upon insufficient notice, a reply that such judgment-defendant, had no notice of such suit, and that the court had no jurisdiction over him therein, is sufficient.
,Same.— Verbal Agreement Contradicting Writing.—An answer in such action, alleging a contemporaneous verbal agreement varying the terms of the note, is insufficient.
Practice.—Informal Demmrer to Insufficient Pleading.—The sustaining of an informal demurrer to an insufficient paragraph of answer is not ground for reversing a judgment rendered upon an issue formed by the general denial.
Erom the Wells Circuit Court.
W. J. Davis, for appellant.

Opinion:
Biddle, C. J.
Suit on a promissory note made by the .appellant to the appellees.
Answer in five paragraphs.
The first sets np a former judgment on the same'note-against the appellant, in favor of the appellees, making the transcript an exhibit.
Reply to this paragraph, that the appellant had no notice of the suit, and the justice of the peace rendering-the judgment had no jurisdiction over the person of the defendant therein.-
A demurrer was overruled to the reply, and exception reserved.
There is no error in this ruling. The judgment was rendered by default. The transcript does not contain the summons, and shows no sufficient notice to the defendant. The appellees could properly treat it as a nullity, and sue upon the original cause of action.
The second, fourth and fifth paragraphs each set up a contemporaneous verbal agreement, varying the terms of the note.
A demurrer was sustained to each of these, and exceptions reserved.
The appellant labors, in his brief, to show us, that this demurrer should have been overruled on account of its informality, notwithstanding each paragraph is insufficient.
We do not concur with this view. Resides, we could not reverse a judgment for the irregular disposition of insufficient paragraphs of answer, after the cause has been tried upon a good issue, which sustains the judgment.
The third paragraph is the general denial.
Upon this issue, the case was tried and the judgment rendered.
There is no available error in the record.
The judgment is affirmed, with costs and ten per cent, damages.