McCartney v. Hubbell
Wisconsin Supreme Court
APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Taylor County. The case is thus stated by Mr. Justice Tayloje: “McCartney brought two actions in justice’s court against Hubbell to recover for two bills of goods sold and delivered to the latter. In the first action he claimed as surviving partner of the late firm of McCartney & "Whelan,-and in the second action in his own right.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Taylor County. The case is thus stated by Mr. Justice Tayloje: “McCartney brought two actions in justice’s court against Hubbell to recover for two bills of goods sold and delivered to the latter. In the first action he claimed as surviving partner of the late firm of McCartney & "Whelan,-and in the second action in his own right. Hubbell denied his liability in both actions, and alleged that the goods sold and delivered to him by the plaintiff were sold upon the credit of one Dennis Need-ham, and were received by said Hubbell in part payment for certain pine…
1Opinion of the CourtTaylor, J.
From an examination of the verdict it is apparent that the case was submitted to the jury upon the theory that the defendant had produced evidence on his part which would justify the jury in finding that the contract between Needham and the defendant was, in fact, a contract between the defendant and McCartney j that Needham made the contract as the agent of McCartney, and for McCartney’s bene*368fit, and with his assent. We think this was an erroneous theory. Admitting the truth of all the statements made by the defendant in his evidence, they do not tend to prove that the contract was the…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Champion v. DotyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1872
- Stearns v. HoughtonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1866
- Lawrence v. VilaWisconsin Supreme Court · 1866