Rust v. Mansfield
Illinois Supreme Court
The record shows the consolidation of seven different petitions for the enforcement of mechanics’ liens, as follows: The petition filed, sets forth that the petitioners, on the 1st day of May, 1858, contracted with one Jacob Besore, to furnish the said Besore building materials, by and before the 17th of November, 1858, and by the terms of the contract the petitioners were to furnish and deliver said Besore building materials as aforesaid, at the usual market price, at…
Read the full summary
The record shows the consolidation of seven different petitions for the enforcement of mechanics’ liens, as follows: The petition filed, sets forth that the petitioners, on the 1st day of May, 1858, contracted with one Jacob Besore, to furnish the said Besore building materials, by and before the 17th of November, 1858, and by the terms of the contract the petitioners were to furnish and deliver said Besore building materials as aforesaid, at the usual market price, at Decatur, Illinois, not to exceed one thousand dollars. That at the time of making the contract aforesaid, that the said…
1Opinion of the CourtBreese, J.
We believe it to be a well settled principle, that the answer of one co-defendant in chancery, cannot be read in evidence against another, except in particular cases, as where such defendants are partners, or where one has acted as the agent of the other in any transaction to which the answer may relate, and the agency or partnership at the time of filing the answer still exists. In such cases, the answers of the partners will be evidence against the copartner, and that of the agent against his principal, when such copartner or principal claims through or under such partner or agent. Rector…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Wheeler v. McCorristenIllinois Supreme Court · 1860
3Cited by3 opinions
- Myers v. KinzieIllinois Supreme Court · 1861
- Clark v. WilsonIllinois Supreme Court · 1889
- Graham v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Iowa · 1940