Carlisle v. Hooks

Stayton, Associate Justice.

This suit was brought by the appellee upon a bill or order, the exact terms or character of which do not appear in the record, drawn on Carlisle in favor of Hooks, by Peterson, which, it is alleged, was accepted by Carlisle to be paid “ so soon thereafter as Carlisle should find himself in funds.”

*421[Opinion delivered January 28, 1883.]

There is no averment in the petition that Carlisle after the date of the alleged acceptance had any funds of Peterson in his hands out of which to pay the bill. It is alleged that he subsequently had personal property belonging to…