Legal Opinion

Van Ness v. Corkins

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided June 15, 1860PublishedCited by 4 opinions

ERROR to the Circuit Court for Rode County. The facts in this case are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the Court

By the Court,

Dixon, O. J.

This was an action commenced by the defendant in error (plaintiff below) in the circuit court for the county of Rock, againt Van Hess and Hill as the makers, and Nichols and others as the indorsers, of a promissory note, to recover, a sum of money alleged to have been due upon the same. The summons was regularly served upon Van Hess and Hill in the county of La Crosse, where they resided. Nichols and others, the indorsers, who resided in the county of Rock, were not served. No attempt was made to serve them. Van Hess and Hill answered, setting up that the note was…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Harrington v. HighamNew York Supreme Court · 1853

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Berry v. St. Louis & S. F. R.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Arkansas · 1902
  2. Hamm v. BascheOregon Supreme Court · 1892
  3. Duncan v. CapehartSupreme Court of Colorado · 1907
  4. Holmes v. WebbWisconsin Supreme Court · 1917

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API