McCagg v. Woodman
Illinois Supreme Court
This was an action of assumpsit, brought by the plaintiff in error against the defendant-in error, upon a promissory note. The declaration contained a special count upon the note, and the common counts.
Read the full summary
This was an action of assumpsit, brought by the plaintiff in error against the defendant-in error, upon a promissory note. The declaration contained a special count upon the note, and the common counts. The note sued on was dated May 8, 1861, for $235, due in thirty days after date, made at Chicago by the defendant in error, payable to the order of Spafford, Stewart & Co., at the office of E. I. Tinkham & Co., and indorsed in blank by the payees, and by E. I. Tinkham & Co. Plea, the general issue, and a notice : That the note was given by defendant to Spafford, Stewart & Co. That E. I.…
1Opinion of the CourtWaltee, J.
It appears from the evidence that defendant in error made his note to Spafford, Stewart & Co., payable in thirty days at the office of Tinkham & Co., bankers, in Chicago. That Tinkham & Co. purchased the note of the payees before its maturity. That some eight or ten days before it fell due, Tinkham & Co. assigned and delivered a part of their assets, principally bills and notes not then due, in trust for the benefit of a part of their creditors named in the deed of assignment. This note was included in the assets thus transferred. Also, that defendant in error kept a bank account with Tinkham…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Colton v. Drovers' Perpetual Building & Loan Ass'nCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1899
- Jones v. PieningWisconsin Supreme Court · 1893
- Williams v. JohnsonMontana Supreme Court · 1914
- Salladin v. MitchellNebraska Supreme Court · 1894
- Heiple v. LehmanAppellate Court of Illinois · 1933
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.