McKinney v. Peck
Illinois Supreme Court
This was an action of assumpsit brought by the defendant in error against the plaintiff in error, and Samuel T. Went-worth, jointly. The declaration contains three counts. The first for use and occupation. The second is upon the letting of certain tenements, etc., by the plaintiff to the defendants.
Read the full summary
This was an action of assumpsit brought by the defendant in error against the plaintiff in error, and Samuel T. Went-worth, jointly. The declaration contains three counts. The first for use and occupation. The second is upon the letting of certain tenements, etc., by the plaintiff to the defendants. The third alleges that, on the first day of May, 1859, the plaintiff, by parol, demised to the defendants certain tenements, etc., for the term of one year then next ensuing, at a yearly rent of $2,500, in equal monthly installments of $208.33 each. That the defendants entered upon the premises…
1Opinion of the CourtBbeese, J.
This was an action of assumpsit against the plaintiffs in error as partners with one Samuel T. Wentworth, for the use and occupation of a certain store, Eb. 161, on Lake street, in the city of Chicago. The defendants filed separately, a plea of non-assumpsit, verified on the part of McKinney in error, by an affidavit.
The first question arising is, what was put in issue by the plea so verified ? By sec. 8, of ch. 40, it is provided, that “ in actions upon contracts, express or implied, against two or more defendants, alleged to have been made or executed by such defendants as partners, or…
2Cited by17 opinions
- Marr v. RayIllinois Supreme Court · 1894
- Cottrell v. GersonAppellate Court of Illinois · 1938
- Grover & Baker Sewing Machine Co. v. BulkleyIllinois Supreme Court · 1868
- Price v. Pittsburgh, Fort Wayne & Chicago RailroadIllinois Supreme Court · 1864
- Hately v. MyersAppellate Court of Illinois · 1901
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.