Irwin v. Paulett
Supreme Court of Kansas
The defendants in error brought an action in the court below against the plaintiff in error upon a promissory note executed by him and one C. B. Campbell (defendant below not served) to E. A. Paulett & Co. There was no averment in the petition that the firm of E. A. Paulett & Co. was composed of Eleanor A. Paulett and Alexis Paulett.
Read the full summary
The defendants in error brought an action in the court below against the plaintiff in error upon a promissory note executed by him and one C. B. Campbell (defendant below not served) to E. A. Paulett & Co. There was no averment in the petition that the firm of E. A. Paulett & Co. was composed of Eleanor A. Paulett and Alexis Paulett. The answer of defendant admitted the making of the note, and set out a payment of one hundred and fifty dollars, and a request by defendant below that it bo applied on the note in suit, and prayed that said payment bo set off to the amount due on said note, “ and…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Cobb, C. J.
This action was brought in the district court of Doniphan county, by the defendants in error against the plaintiff in error, upon a promissory note made by said Irwin and one C. B. Campbell in terms payable to the order of B. A. Paulett & Co. .¿.h
Irwin answered, in substance, that, at the time of making1 the note, Campbell was indebted to the plaintiffs belovr in the sum mentioned, as principal in the note, and bo (Irwih) signed the note as security for Campbell, and that Campbelí'^f|l>r-“ ward, on or about the the first of May, 1861, paid to'?said_s plaintiffs one…
2Cited by17 opinions
- Baltimore & Ohio Railroad v. Town of WhitingIndiana Supreme Court · 1903
- Patterson v. Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1909
- Clay v. Hildebrand Bros.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1886
- Conduitt v. RyanIndiana Court of Appeals · 1891
- Barkley v. StateSupreme Court of Kansas · 1875
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.