Reynolds v. Stansbury
Ohio Supreme Court
Error to the commercial court of Cincinnati. *In the court below, the action was assumpsit. Eeynolds,. the plaintiff below (and plaintiff in error) declared in the common counts. The facts, so far as material, are stated in the opinion of the court. After verdict for defendants in the court below, a motion for new trial' was overruled.
Read the full summary
Error to the commercial court of Cincinnati. *In the court below, the action was assumpsit. Eeynolds,. the plaintiff below (and plaintiff in error) declared in the common counts. The facts, so far as material, are stated in the opinion of the court. After verdict for defendants in the court below, a motion for new trial' was overruled. The record of the proceeding in the superior court of Cincinnati, setting aside the judgment in said court rendered at January term, 1847, for $410.97 in favor of Samuel Eeynolds against John S. Stansbury, is as follows: “State of Ohio, Hamilton county, ss.…
1Opinion of the CourtCaldwell, J.
The proceeding in the commercial court of' Cincinnati was an action of assumpsit, brought by Reynolds to recover *296the price of a quantity of tobacco, which he claimed to have sold to the defendants, Stansbury & Burch, as partners. The defendants plead the general issue, and claimed that no partnership existed between them, and that Burch had nothing whatever to do in the pmrchase of the tobacco. The plaintiff having offered evidence for the purpose of proving the sale of the tobacco, and tending to prove the partnership of defendants, gave in evidence a bill of exchange for $487.77, dated…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Foot v. StevensNew York Supreme Court · 1837
- Morgan v. DyerNew York Supreme Court · 1812
- Brackenridge v. M'CullochIndiana Supreme Court · 1845
- Philips v. HawleyNew York Supreme Court · 1810
3Cited by2 opinions
- Glass v. GlassSupreme Court of Alabama · 1884
- Pokrandt v. KonorskiCuyahoga Circuit Court · 1911