Hooe v. Lockwood
Wisconsin Supreme Court
ERROR to tbe late District Court for Orawford County. This was an action of debt, brought in the name of James II. Lockwood, late judge of probate for that county, who sued for the use of “the American Fur Company,” in his official capacity. The action was in debt, founded on a bond executed by Hmilie Hooe, one of the plaintiffs in error, and her sureties in a bond, given in her behalf as executrix of the estate of Joseph Rolette, the testator.
Read the full summary
ERROR to tbe late District Court for Orawford County. This was an action of debt, brought in the name of James II. Lockwood, late judge of probate for that county, who sued for the use of “the American Fur Company,” in his official capacity. The action was in debt, founded on a bond executed by Hmilie Hooe, one of the plaintiffs in error, and her sureties in a bond, given in her behalf as executrix of the estate of Joseph Rolette, the testator. By the bond, the plaintiffs in error “acknowledged themselves, jointly and severally, for the whole and in the whole, to be holden and firmly bound…
1Opinion of the Court
Whitoít, J.
This case comes here from the late district court for Crawford county.
It appears by the record, that Emilie Hooe and her sureties were sued in that court,on a bond entered into by them, conditioned as follows: “ That, whereas, the said Emilie Hooe had taken out letters testamentary on the estate of Joseph Rolette, of the county aforesaid, deceased; then, therefore, if the above bounden Emilie Hooe would make, or cause to be made, a true and perfect inventory of all and singular, the goods, chattels, rights and credits of the said deceased, which had, or should come to her hands,…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Van Doran v. ArmstrongWisconsin Supreme Court · 1871
- Cook v. HelmsWisconsin Supreme Court · 1856