Martin v. Eversal
Illinois Supreme Court
Writ of Error to the Circuit Court of Clinton county; the Hon. Silas L. Bryan, Judge, presiding. The record in this case is the same as that in the preceding case of Fielden Power et al. v. Reuben McCord et al. George H. Eversal and James McLaird were made defendants in that proceeding, and they filed their answer, and made it a bill of interpleader.
Read the full summary
Writ of Error to the Circuit Court of Clinton county; the Hon. Silas L. Bryan, Judge, presiding. The record in this case is the same as that in the preceding case of Fielden Power et al. v. Reuben McCord et al. George H. Eversal and James McLaird were made defendants in that proceeding, and they filed their answer, and made it a bill of interpleader. They claim in it, to have furnished labor and materials for the erection of the steam flouring mill, under a contract in these words: “ Labor of George H. Eversal (millwright) commencing December 27th, 1859, and ending June the 25th, 1860,155…
1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice Walker
This case is a branch of the case of Power et al. v. McCord et al., determined at the present term. On the trial, two witnesses testified that one or both of plaintiffs in error told them they were to pay Eversal five dollars a day, and the nnder mechanics two dollars and fifty cents, and that they had to pay them every Saturday evening. This evidence overcomes the denial of plaintiffs in error, in their answer, that they agreed to so pay for the labor. The bill of interpleader alleges, that Eversal labored one hundred and fifty-five days on the mill, and that the under workmen labored the…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Neilson, Benton & O'Donnel v. Iowa Eastern R. Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1879
- Bastrup v. PrendergastIllinois Supreme Court · 1899
- Haskell v. BrownIllinois Supreme Court · 1872
- Watrous v. ElmendorfNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1878