CHAPTER VII. REPLIES. No. 1. Reply to an answer of the statute of limitations in tort that the defendant has been absent from the state. 2. Reply to answer of accord and satisfaction that the same were ob tained by fraud. 3. Reply of an acknowledgment in writing within six years. 4. Reply in three paragraphs, setting up fraud, want of consideration and incompetency by drunkenness, to an answer of release. 5. Reply to an answer that the defendant was drunk when he made the note sued on, that when he became sober he promised to pay the same. 6. Reply to an answer setting up a defense to a promissory note against an assignee, of failure of consideration, setting up an estoppel. 8. 7. Reply to an answer of composition that the same was obtained by fraud. Reply to an answer setting up fraud, that, in an action between the same parties, the same defense was made to one of a series of bonds or other obligations based upon the same transaction, there was a judgment which operates as an estoppel. 9. Reply in two paragraphs to an answer setting up infancy. 10. Reply of affirmance to an answer to an action upon a promissory note, setting up infancy. 11. Reply to an answer of infancy that the defendant confirmed his promise after he became of age. 12. Reply to an answer of statute of limitations, of exception of non-residence on the part of the defendant. 13. Reply to answer of the statute of limitations setting up exceptions, with general denial. 14. Reply of the statute of limitations to an answer of set-off or counter claim. 15. Reply that the plaintiff tendered the amount of the lien. 16. Reply of non est factum to an answer setting up a release by deed. 17. Reply of nul tiel record to answer of judgment recovered in the same court. 18. Reply of an estoppel to a defense of soil and freehold in the defendant, in action of trespass, that the question of title between the parties has been adjudicated in another action. 19. Reply of excess to an answer in justification, in an action of trespass. 20. Reply to a justification in trespass, for injury to goods, that the same were incumbering defendant's premises. VOL. I.-45 No. 1. Reply to answer of the statute of limitations in tort that the defendant has been absent from the state. In the Circuit Court, Term, 18-. A. B. vs. C. D. Said plaintiff, for reply to the defendant's answer, says that said defendant has been, and was, from the time of the accruing of plaintiff's cause of action until within ten days of the bringing of this suit, absent from the state of Indiana. No. 2. N. P., Att'y for Plaintiff. Reply to an answer of accord and satisfaction that the same were obtained by fraud. In the A. B. vs. C. D. Circuit Court, Term, 18 Said plaintiff, for reply to the answer of the defendant, says that he took from the defendant said note mentioned in the said answer in satisfaction of the debt sued on herein, upon the faith of the representation of defendant that said D. D., maker thereof, was solvent, and the owner of acres of land, whereas he was wholly insolvent, and was not the owner of any land, which the defendant well knew, but of which the plaintiff' was wholly ignorant; that as soon as the plaintiff discovered that the representations of the defendant aforesaid were false, and that said D. D. was wholly insolvent and having no indorsement of said defendant upon said note, the same being payable to him, the plaintiff tendered said note to the defendant, but he refused to receive the same, and the plaintiff now here brings the same into court. T. T., Att'y for Plaintiff. No. 3. Reply of an acknowledgment in writing within six years. A. B. vs. C. D. In the Court, Term, 18 Said plaintiff, for a reply to the defendant's answer (or to the paragraph of defendant's answer), says that, within six years before the bringing of this action, the defendant executed a writing, a copy whereof is herewith filed, by which he acknowledged said debt, and agreed to pay the same. No. 4. Y. Z., Att'y for Plaintiff. Reply in three paragraphs, setting up fraud, want of consideration, and incompetency by drunkenness to an answer of release. In the - Circuit Court, A. B. vs. C. D. Term, 18-. Par. 1. Said plaintiff, for reply to the answer of said defendant, says the release set up in said answer was obtained by fraud in this, that said plaintiff, being absent from home, met the defendant, who represented to him that, in pursuance of a previous agreement, he had, in the absence of the plaintiff, delivered at his mill bushels of wheat, and alleging that it was necessary for the protection of the defendant's credit that he should have the deed to show to his creditors, he requested the plaintiff to execute the same, which he did, relying upon the truth of said representations; but the plaintiff says that said defendant had not delivered said wheat, or done any other act or thing in satisfaction of the debt sued on. Par. 2. For further reply, the plaintiff says that said plaintiff was, at the time he executed said deed, so drunk he did not understand the object, purport or effect of the same. Par. 3. For further reply, said plaintiff says said deed mentioned in the answer was made without any consideration whatW. W. C., Att'y for Plaintiff. ever. No. 5. Reply to answer that the defendant was drunk when he made the note, and that when he became sober he promised to pay the same.1 In the A. B. vs. C. D. Circuit Court, Term, 18—. 1 Said plaintiff, for reply to the defendant's answer (or to the paragraph of defendant's answer) (or to the and 1 Bishop on Contracts, § 306, and notes 1 and 2; Jost v. Williams, 42 Ind. 565. paragraphs of defendant's answer), says that after the defendant became sober, and in every respect sound in mind, he ratified said note and promised to pay the same, it having been made upon a good and valid consideration. T. W. G., Att'y for Plaintiff. No. 6. Reply to an answer, setting up a defense to promissory note against an assignee, of failure of consideration, setting up an estoppel. In the A. B. vs. C. D. Circuit Court, Term, 18 Said plaintiff, for reply to the defendant's answer (or the paragraph of the defendant's answer), says that said defendant is estopped from setting up his said defense to said note sued on herein, because he says that notwithstanding the said note is not commercial paper, yet on the — day of 18-, when the said P. P. was about to assign said note to the plaintiff, he called upon the defendant and inquired whether he had any defense to said note, and defendant said he had none, and that plaintiff might safely buy it, and thereupon, relying upon said representations, the plaintiff paid full value for and took an assignment of said note, said defendant then well knowing all the facts upon which he now relies for a defense. C. C., Att'y for Plaintiff. No. 7. Reply to an answer of composition that the same was obtained by fraud.1 In the A. B. vs. C. D. Circuit Court, Term, 18 Said plaintiff, for reply to the defendant's answer, says that said defendant obtained the assent and signature of the plaintiff to said agreement of composition by fraud, in this: that while the said agreement stipulated that said creditors of the defendant would accept per cent. of their claims in satisfaction of their respective demands, provided all defendant's creditors be1 Kahn v. Gunberts, 9 Ind. 430. became parties to said agreement, yet, in order to procure the No. 8. Reply to an answer setting up fraud, that, in an action between the same parties, the same defense was made to one of a series of bonds or other obligations based upon the same transaction, there was a judgment which operates as an estoppel. In the A. B. vs. C. D. Circuit Court, Term, 18-. term of the para circuit Said plaintiff, for reply to the defendant's answer (or graph), says that the bond sued on in this action is one of a series of one hundred, secured by the same deed of trust, and issued by the defendant to the plaintiff at the same time, and upon the same consideration. That at the court, in the state of -, 18-, the plaintiff brought an action against said defendant upon another of said series of bonds, and said defendant appeared to said action, and filed his answer, setting up the identical defense contained in his answer here; that thereupon said plaintiff replied thereto, and upon a trial of the issue of fact the plaintiff had judgment against said defendant for the amount of said bond; wherefore the plaintiff says said defendant is estopped to set up said defense. No. 9. W. A., Att'y for Plaintiff. Reply in two paragraphs to an answer, setting up infancy. In the Circuit Court, Term, 18-. A. B. vs. C. D. The reply of the plaintiff to the second and third paragraphs of the defendant's answer to the first and second paragraphs of the plaintiff's complaint: |