Fosdick v. Starbuck
Cases that cite this one
5 later published cases cite this decision.
- Glenn v. Porter (Ind. 1875)
- Stutsman v. Thomas (Ind. 1872)
- Collins v. Maghee (Ind. 1869)
- Swiggett v. Seymour (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Indiana 1868)
- Rich v. Sovacool (Ind. 1858)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
THE assignee of a promissory note, given without consideration, may sue the assignor at any time, and without having previously sued the maker. Howell v. Wilson, 2 Blackf. 418.
The maker of a promissory note is a competent, witness for the plaintiff, in an action by the assignee against the assignor, involving the validity of the consideration of the note.
The statute requiring an oath to a plea, replication, &c., denying the execution of an instrument of writing, &c., does not dispense with the production of the instrument on the trial: it only excuses proof of the execution of the instrument, when such plea, &c. is without oath.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.