Price v. Edwards
Supreme Court of Missouri
ERROR to Cole Circuit Court. 1st. That the said Henry Bartlett was the principal debtor, and the said Price, Kerr, Young and Edwards were his sureties in the bond made to Curtis for the payment of the said sum of $1196' 18, as stated in the bill.
Read the full summary
ERROR to Cole Circuit Court. 1st. That the said Henry Bartlett was the principal debtor, and the said Price, Kerr, Young and Edwards were his sureties in the bond made to Curtis for the payment of the said sum of $1196' 18, as stated in the bill. Gow on Partnership, 283, and note (v.) as what are debts of a partnership, and what are individual debts of a member of the firm. 2nd Greenleaf’s Ev. sec. 484. The declarations of a person that he is a member of a partnership, is evidence to charge him as such, but not evidence to prove another person to be of the firm. 2nd. That there is no…
1Opinion of the CourtMcBride, J.
This was a bill in chancery, filed by Thomas L. Price, complainant, against E. L. Edwards, Wra. D. Kerr, Wm. C. Young, and Henry Bart*526lett. Subsequently the bill was dismissed as against Young and Bartlett, by consent, in consequence of their insolvency.
The bill charges, that about the 2nd June, 1840, Henry Bartlett became indebted to Fielding Curtis in the sum of $1196 18, and executed to him his bond with the above named defendants as his securities; the bond was payable in twelve months after date, with ten per cent, interest thereon. That Bartlett failing to pay, Edwards, on the 16th May,…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Southern Pacific Co. v. MartinTexas Supreme Court · 1904
- Chapin v. CherrySupreme Court of Missouri · 1912
- Miller v. MillerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1925
- Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. of Texas v. DoyalCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1911
- Panhandle & S. F. Ry. Co. v. ThompsonCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1923