Legal Opinion

Barnett v. Smith

Illinois Supreme Court

Decided June 15, 1856PublishedCited by 6 opinions

This was an action of debt. The declaration is as follows: For that whereas on the 19th day of April, A. D. 1850, the defendants made their certain bond or writing obligatory in the sum of five thousand dollars, lawful money, to be paid to George Smith A Co.,—the condition of said bond being such, that if the said Thomas Hamilton Noble (one of the appellants herein,) should well and truly perform the duties assigned to, and trust reposed in, him as teller of said firm, and…

Read the full summary

This was an action of debt. The declaration is as follows: For that whereas on the 19th day of April, A. D. 1850, the defendants made their certain bond or writing obligatory in the sum of five thousand dollars, lawful money, to be paid to George Smith A Co.,—the condition of said bond being such, that if the said Thomas Hamilton Noble (one of the appellants herein,) should well and truly perform the duties assigned to, and trust reposed in, him as teller of said firm, and as long as he should continue in that capacity; or if the said Thomas Hamilton Noble should well and truly perform the…

1Opinion of the Court

Catón, J.

The question presented by the pleadings in this cause is this: George Smith was doing a banking business under the name of George Smith & Co. And, as such, employed Noble as his teller in the bank. Barnett and Armour executed the bond sued on, to Smith, by the name of George Smith & Co., conditioned that Noble should conduct himself with integrity, &c., in his said appointment, and in any other employment of the obligee. Smith afterwards entered into a contract of copartnership with Willard, in the said banking business, by which it was agreed that he should be a partner in the firm…

2Cited by6 opinions

  1. Schoonover v. Osborne Bros.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1899
  2. Dupee v. BlakeIllinois Supreme Court · 1893
  3. Standard Oil Co. v. ArnestadNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1896
  4. John H. Lyon & Co. v. PlumSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1908
  5. London & L. Ins. v. HoltSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1897

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API