Hughes v. Fisher
Supreme Court of Colorado
Error to County Court, Pueblo County. This action was brought by Fisher Bros, to recover from Hughes Bros, as acceptors, and from H. J. Coy as drawer thereof, the amount specified in the following instrument: “$115.09. December 6, 1882. “ Messrs. Hughes Brothers: Pay to the order of Fisher Bros., freight advanced on stone, one hundred and fifteen dollars and nine cents. Charge to account of H. J. Coy.
Read the full summary
Error to County Court, Pueblo County. This action was brought by Fisher Bros, to recover from Hughes Bros, as acceptors, and from H. J. Coy as drawer thereof, the amount specified in the following instrument: “$115.09. December 6, 1882. “ Messrs. Hughes Brothers: Pay to the order of Fisher Bros., freight advanced on stone, one hundred and fifteen dollars and nine cents. Charge to account of H. J. Coy. Ho. 46.” On the back of the instrument was indorsed the following words, to wit: “This order to be paid on final settlement of stone-work on city hall, and charge to the account of Hardin &…
1Opinion of the CourtHelm, J.
The wi-iting on which this action was brought, and the written indorsement upon the back thereof, made at the time it was drawm and before its presentation for acceptance, must be construed as constituting in law but a single instrument. 1 Daniel, Neg. Inst. § 79, cases. Thus viewed, it is to be regarded as a conditional order; the condition precedent to payment being the “final settlement of stone-work on city hall.” The expression, “and charge to the account of Hardin & Eamsey, ” does not add to or alter the written condition so far as Fisher Bros, are concerned. As interpreted by the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Putney v. FarnhamWisconsin Supreme Court · 1870
3Cited by11 opinions
- Mine & Smelter Supply Co. v. Stockgrowers' BankCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1909
- Rollins v. Denver ClubSupreme Court of Colorado · 1908
- Rude v. MacCormacSupreme Court of Colorado · 1922
- Burson v. BogartSupreme Court of Colorado · 1911
- Upham v. CluteMichigan Supreme Court · 1895
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.