Bischoff & Co. v. Blease
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Before Pressley, J., Newberry, February, 1882. This was an action against H. H. Blease. The opinion states', the pleadings and the exceptions. The order of the Circuit-judge was as follows: This is an action on three promissory notes. The complaint, in its caption sets out “ Henry Bischoff, C. Wulbern and J. Ii.. Pieper, trading under the name and style of Henry Bischoff & Co.,” as the plaintiffs.
Read the full summary
Before Pressley, J., Newberry, February, 1882. This was an action against H. H. Blease. The opinion states', the pleadings and the exceptions. The order of the Circuit-judge was as follows: This is an action on three promissory notes. The complaint, in its caption sets out “ Henry Bischoff, C. Wulbern and J. Ii.. Pieper, trading under the name and style of Henry Bischoff & Co.,” as the plaintiffs. Each allegation on the separate notes-states that “defendant gave his promissory note in writing,, whereby he promised to pay the plaintiffs, Henry Bischoff &. Co.,” the sum stated. There is no…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Mr. Chief Justice Simpson.
The action below was upon three notes^ executed by the defendant to Henry Bischoff & Co., The complaint, in its caption or title, named Henry Bischoff, C. Wulbern and J. H. Peiper, trading under the name and style of Henry Bischoff & Co., as plaintiffs. In its body it stated as to-each of those notes, that the defendant had made his promissory note in writing, whereby he promised to pay to the plaintiffs, Plenry Bischoff & Co., or order, &c., the amount specified in each. It was also alleged, that said plaintiffs were now and…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Smith v. . LevinusNew York Court of Appeals · 1853
- Gould v. GlassNew York Supreme Court · 1855
- Scrantom v. Farmers & Mechanics' BankNew York Supreme Court · 1860
- Fowler v. WesterveltNew York Supreme Court · 1863