Peters v. Sanford
Court for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors
Assumpsit, tried at the Delaware circuit in June, 1844, before Ruggles, 0. Judge. The declaration, besides the common money counts, contained a count for goods sold and delivered, and the defendants pleaded non assump.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit, tried at the Delaware circuit in June, 1844, before Ruggles, 0. Judge. The declaration, besides the common money counts, contained a count for goods sold and delivered, and the defendants pleaded non assump. On the trial it was admitted that there was a balance due the plaintiff for wool sold to the defendant Read, on the 29th day of August, 1842, of $300, for which sum Read, on that day, made his note payable to the order of the plaintiff* at the Delaware Batik, which note the plaintiff received, and after endorsing it, procured it to be discounted by the bank at which it was…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, Jewett, J.'
Assuming that the defendants were partners in the,purchase of the plaintiff’s wool, and as such jointly liable for the payment of the price, still this action cannot be sustained. The plaintiffs accepted the individual note of Read as a security of the payment of that debt, he transferred the note by endorsement, and it not being paid at maturity, he as endorser and Read the maker, were sued upon it and judgment was recovered against them. It is well settled, that if a judgment be obtained against one of several joint contractors, in a separate action against him on…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Robertson v. SmithNew York Supreme Court · 1821
3Cited by13 opinions
- Jansen v. GrimshawIllinois Supreme Court · 1888
- Hawks v. HinchcliffNew York Supreme Court · 1854
- Thompson v. EmmertIllinois Supreme Court · 1854
- Whiting v. BurgerSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1886
- Lawrence v. SampleIndiana Supreme Court · 1884
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.