Stirling v. Buckingham
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Assumpsit upon a promissory note; brought to the Court of Common Pleas of Fairfield County, and tried to the jury before Beers, J. Verdict for the defendant Buckingham, who alone made defence. Motion for a new trial by the plaintiff for error in the rulings of the court. The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtLoomis, J.
This action was brought by the plaintiff as indorsee of a promissory note, executed in the copartnership name of Buckingham & Miller, by Miller, one of the defendants, after the dissolution of the firm, and, as claimed, in fraud of the rights of Buckingham, the other defendant» •
*462The defendant Buckingham claimed to have proved that the plaintiff purchased the note in question on the 6th day of September, 1873, and for the purpose of impeaching the claim of the plaintiff as a bond fide holder for value before maturity without notice as to its character, and for the purpose of showing that the…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Smith v. WebbNew York Supreme Court · 1847
- Howard v. NortonNew York Supreme Court · 1873
- Shepard v. GiddingsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1852
- State v. AlfordSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1862
- Doane v. CumminsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1835
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- People v. KayneMichigan Supreme Court · 1934
- General Hospital Society v. New Haven Rendering Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1907
- Hurlburt v. BussemeySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1924
- McCrimmon v. MurrayMontana Supreme Court · 1911
- C. & C. Electric Motor Co. v. D. Frisbie & Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1895
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.