Robinson v. Nye
Illinois Supreme Court
This was an action of trespass de bonis asportatis. The declaration was in the usual form in such cases, and contains four counts. The first count is in the usual form for trespass de bonis, etc. The second count alleged the existence of a partnership between Andrew S. and George W. Anderson, in Chillicothe, under the name and style of “ A. S. Anderson & Bro.”
Read the full summary
This was an action of trespass de bonis asportatis. The declaration was in the usual form in such cases, and contains four counts. The first count is in the usual form for trespass de bonis, etc. The second count alleged the existence of a partnership between Andrew S. and George W. Anderson, in Chillicothe, under the name and style of “ A. S. Anderson & Bro.” That said firm, on, to wit, the 8th day of November, 1856, made an assignment of their goods and effects to the plaintiff, and that the goods in this count mentioned were conveyed and delivered to plaintiff by said firm, under and by…
1Opinion of the CourtBreese, J.
The assignment of Anderson under which the plaintiff claims the goods in controversy is fraudulent and void on its face, as we have already decided in the case of McIntire v. Benson, 20 Ill. R. 500. On its face, the assignee is made liable only for willful defaults. We will not go over the ground traversed in the case above cited, but refer to it as decisive of this case.
The plaintiff here however insists that this objectionable feature of the deed of assignment has been remedied by the second amendment made by the assignor himself to the deed without the concurrence of the assignee.
This we…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Tuttle v. GilmoreSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1883
- Finlay v. DickersonIllinois Supreme Court · 1862