McKnight v. Birhap ex rel. Hooper
Supreme Court of Iowa
This was an action of assumpsit on an order for 5000 lbs. of lead drawn by one Manchester on Wm. Y. Decker Sc Co. in favor of A. E. Hough, accepted by Decker in his own name, and endorsed by Hough, the payee, to Birhap.— The declaration was in the common form of a declaration on a bill of exchange. Service was on McKnight only, one of the firm of Wm.
Read the full summary
This was an action of assumpsit on an order for 5000 lbs. of lead drawn by one Manchester on Wm. Y. Decker Sc Co. in favor of A. E. Hough, accepted by Decker in his own name, and endorsed by Hough, the payee, to Birhap.— The declaration was in the common form of a declaration on a bill of exchange. Service was on McKnight only, one of the firm of Wm. Y. Decker Sc Co., who appeared and pleaded the gen. issue and several special pleas not having any bearing on the points tobe decided under the writ of error. Verdict for plffs. and judgment thereon: and the case is now brought up to the Supreme…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court
Williams, J.
This is an action of assumpsit at the suit of J. W Birhap, who sues for the use of Wm. H. Hooper, George Peck, and Samuel Scales against Wm. Y. Decker & Co. brought to recover the value of 5000 lbs. of lead. The plaintiff declared upon anbrderin words as follows, viz: Messrs. Wm. Y. Decker & Co.—
Gent: — Please deliver A. E. Hough five thousand pounds of lead on my account. April 2, 1838. Thomas Manchester.
On the back of which order is the following endorsement in writing:
“Please deliver the within five thousand pounds of lead to Mr. J. M. Bir-hap. April 4, 1838. A. E.…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Botsford v. YatesSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1868