Case Name: Garner v. Cook and Another
Court: Supreme Court of Indiana
Jurisdiction: Indiana
Decision Date: 1868-11
Citations: 30 Ind. 331
Docket Number: 
Parties: Garner v. Cook and Another.
Judges: 
Reporter: Indiana Reports
Volume: 30
Pages: 331–332

Head Matter:
Garner v. Cook and Another.
Promissory Note. — Parties.—Evidence.—The equitable owner of a promissory note may sue upon it in Ms own name, and possession of the note is evidence of such ownership.
Justice oe the Peace. — Pleading.—Suit by A. and B. before a justice of the peace. The complaint was a promissory note executed by the defendant to D., without indorsement. There was no express averment that the plaintiffs. owned the note.
Held, that this was a sufficient complaint.
Bastardy.— Compromise of. — Infancy of Mother. — Answer, in a suit upon a ' promissory note against the maker, that the consideration of the note was the compromise of a bastardy case and that the mother, the payee, was an infant.
Held, that the maker could not avail himself of the minority of the payee, and there was no error in striking tlio allegation thereof from the answer.
Held, also, that if the compromiso was not consummated* by the proceedings in court necessary to make it obligatory, that fact should have been alleged in the answer.
APPEAL from the Warren Circuit Court.

Opinion:
Frazer, J.
This cause was commenced before a justice of the peace. Mary Jane Cook and Daniel Cook wore plaintiffs and Peter Garner was defendant. The complaint filed was a promissory note payable to Mary Jane Coghill executed by the defendant, was without indorsement, and there was no express averment showing that the plaintiffs owned the note. It is contended that this was not sufficient as a complaint. We think otherwise. When Vandagrift v. Tate, 4 Blackf. 174, was decided the equitable owner of a note could not sue upon it in his own name; now he can; and the possession of the note is evidence of such ownership. Then a note papable to A. and not indorsed would show no right of action thereon in favor of B., but the law is otherwise, and therefore the reason for the ruling in the case cited does not now exist.
J. McCabe, for appellant.
L. T. Miller and J. Parle, for appellees.
An answer that the consideration of the note ivas the compromise of a bastardy case, and that the mother of the child, the payee, was an infant, not showing whether or not satisfaction with the compromise was subsequently acknowledged by her in court, was not sufficient, and there was no error in sustaining a demurrer to it, or in first striking out a part of it. The minority-of the woman was unimportant, as the defendant could not avail himself of it; and if the compromise was not consummated by the necessary proceeding in court to make it obligatory, that fact should have been alleged.
The judgment is affirmed, with costs.