Legal Opinion

Holbrook v. Oberne, McDanield & Co.

Supreme Court of Iowa

Decided June 14, 1881PublishedCited by 9 opinions

Appeal from Pottawattamie District Gowrt. ' Action at law. Trial to the court, judgment for the plaintiffs, and defendants appeal.

1Opinion of the Court

Seevers, J,

The contention of the parties may be thus stated: The plaintiffs were the owners of a tannery and claim to have employed one Horning to manage and operate the same for them; that certain hides were purchased to be manufactured into leather at said tannery, and that Horning without the knowledge or consent of the plaintiffs sold said hides to the defendants, and this action was brought to recover the value thereof.

The defendants paid Horning for the hides and claim they were justified in doing so because Horning was a partner of plaintiffs in said business, or, if this be not so,…

2Cited by9 opinions

  1. Buzar v. First National Bank of GreenvilleTexas Supreme Court · 1886
  2. Erb v. Fidelity InsuranceSupreme Court of Iowa · 1896
  3. Winter v. John Pipher & Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1895
  4. Johnson Bros. v. Carter & Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1903
  5. McCarney v. LightnerSupreme Court of Iowa · 1920

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API