Rose v. Comstock
Indiana Supreme Court
APPEAL from the Vigo Circuit Court. The noto being joint, the judgment against Downing was an extinguishment of the note and debt. It was merged in the judgment. Woodworth v. Spofford, 2 McLean, 168; Clinton Bank of Columbus v. Hart, 5 Ohio R. 33; 18 Johns. R. 481.
1Opinion of the CourtWorden, J.
This was a suit by Comstock and Aber against the appellants, and Andrew Downing, upon a promissory note.
It is alleged in the complaint that the defendants wei*© partners, trading under the name and style of A. Downing & Co., and that they, as such partners, made their note to A. Downing, who indorsed it to the plaintiffs.
Downing made default. At the March term of the Court, 1859, Rose and Peck appeared, and filed an answer, alleging, in substance, that Downing, one of the members of the firm, caused one Irons, tlie clerk and agent of the firm, to make and deliver the note to said Downing,…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Hubbell v. WoolfIndiana Supreme Court · 1860
- Woodworth v. SpaffordU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Ohio · 1840
3Cited by7 opinions
- Lawrence v. BeecherIndiana Supreme Court · 1888
- Erwin v. ScottenIndiana Supreme Court · 1872
- Clodfelter v. HulettIndiana Supreme Court · 1884
- Williams v. LoweIndiana Court of Appeals · 1912
- Bayless v. TouseyIndiana Supreme Court · 1863
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.