Corbin v. McChesney
Illinois Supreme Court
This was an action of assumpsit tried before Van H. Higgins, one of the judges of said court, without a jury. The only contest was as to one item of plaintiff’s account. Defendants had been partners in the name of D. W. Corbin & Co., and as such, had dealings with the plaintiff, in which plaintiff became indebted to the defendants in the sum of about $60, excluding the sum of $119 in dispute.
Read the full summary
This was an action of assumpsit tried before Van H. Higgins, one of the judges of said court, without a jury. The only contest was as to one item of plaintiff’s account. Defendants had been partners in the name of D. W. Corbin & Co., and as such, had dealings with the plaintiff, in which plaintiff became indebted to the defendants in the sum of about $60, excluding the sum of $119 in dispute. Duffy was indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of $119, and by his direction, the book-keeper credited the plaintiff, and charged Duffy with that sum on the books of the defendants. There is evidence as…
1Opinion of the CourtWalker, J.
The assignment of errors in this case, questions the correctness of the judgment, because there was not a promise in writing, that the firm would pay the debt of one of the partners. From the evidence, it appears that Duffy was indebted to defendant in error, in the sum of |119, and that by mutual agreement between them, this sum was credited on McChesney’s account with the firm, which left a balance due on the account, of $55.65. It is true that the evidence fails to show that Corbin, the partner of Duffy, was present, or consented at the time to this arrrangement, but we think the evidence…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Rigdon v. ConleyAppellate Court of Illinois · 1892