Knox v. Buffington & Co.
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Louisa Circuit Court. Action upon a promissory note for one hundred and seventy-five dollars, executed by J. Q. Buffington & Co., payable to the order of W. C. Knox & Son. The copartnership of J. Q. Buffington & Co. was composed of J. Q. Buffington and H. C. Wortham.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Louisa Circuit Court. Action upon a promissory note for one hundred and seventy-five dollars, executed by J. Q. Buffington & Co., payable to the order of W. C. Knox & Son. The copartnership of J. Q. Buffington & Co. was composed of J. Q. Buffington and H. C. Wortham. Wortham answered for himself and also for the partnership, averring that said note was given for certain machinery attached to the flouring mill belonging to said' partnership, and that he, said Wortham, never consented to-said purchase, but positively refused, and so notified the plaintiff before said purchase was…
1Opinion of the CourtRothrock, J.
i,Ti.ETmnof^rtSeíIfs contiact. It is conceded that the partnership firm of J. Q. Buffington & Co. consisted of J. Q. Buffington and H. C. Wortham, and that the business of the partnership consisted in operating a flouring mill owned ky £rm_ mao;hinery jn question was placed in said mill on trial, before the said partnership was formed, and while the said mill was owned by other parties.
We think the court was warranted in finding from the evidence that, at about the time the note was given, the plaintiff appeared at the mill, claiming that the machinery had been sold, and not left on trial.…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Sutton v. WeberSupreme Court of Iowa · 1904
- Sladen, Fakes & Co. v. LanceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1909
- Barwick v. AldermanSupreme Court of Florida · 1903
- Van Dyk v. MosterdtSupreme Court of Iowa · 1915
- Carr v. HertzSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1895
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.