178 DuKE ET AL. vs. CRABTREE. [5 DUKE ET AL. VS. CRABTREE. The statement of the clerk that a plea was filed and issue joined, forms no part of the record—the filing must be noticed upon the record, or it is not sufficient. Perkins and wife vs. Crabtree, ante, affirmed. Tn.'s was a petition in debt, in the Lafayette Circuit Court, in April, 1843, before the Hon. JOHN FIELD, one of the circuit judges. The principles decided are similar to those in Perkins and wife vs. Crabtree, ante, but the cases differ somewhat in detail, and it is thought best to give a statement of both. Crabtree filed his petition in debt, according to the form of the statute, stating that, as administrator, &c., he was the legal holder of a bond against the defendants, James M. DuLe. Retus J. Williams, George Dooley, and Henry M. Robinson, executed to him, as administrator, &c., and copied therein the following writng obligatory, to wit: "Twelve months after date, we, or either of us promise to pay William Crabtree, junior, administrator of the estate of Davidson Bradley, deceased, two hundred and sixty-one dollars, for value received, this 1st day of January, 1840, to bear ten per cent. after date until paid. J. M. Duke, [seal], R. J. Wil-liams, [sea]], George Dooley, [seal], H. M. Robinson, [seal]." The defendants all appeared to the action. There also appears an entry on the record, that Duke filed a plea of payment, ad diem., that Crabtree joined issue thereto; but no plea, replication, or similiter is copied in the transcript. Afterwards, all of the defendants joined in a demurrer to the petition, and stated therein the following special causes, to wit: 1st, that they were sued by the names of James M.
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.