
    Jessie W. Suter v. L. Briscoe.
    Demurrer — Sufficiency of Petition.
    A demurrer should not be sustained, where the petition alleges that in the former suit, the plaintiff was induced not to put in his defense, by false and fraudulent promises and assurances by the then plaintiff.
    APPEAL FROM OWEN CIRCUIT COURT.
    September 21, 1869.
    
      Craddock & Trabue, for appellant.
    
    Drane, for appellee.
    
   Opinion of the Court by

Judge Hardin:

The only question in this case, is whether the demurrer of the defendant to the plaintiff’s petition was properly sustained.

The allegations of the petition being taken as confessed on demurrer, it seems to us, if they were true, they were sufficient to entitle the plaintiff to relief. The petition discloses a sufficient defense to the action at law as existing when it is alleged, the defendant who was plaintiff in the first suit, by false and fraudulent promises, representations and assurances, induced the plaintiff to forego putting in his. defense. The averments of the petition sufficiently explain the subsequent failure of the plaintiff to defend the action against him and show why he did not and might not reasonably have discovered that the defendant had in violation of his agreement taken judgment against him.

Wherefore the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded with directions to overrule the said demurrer and for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.  