Hendricks v. Robinson & Stevens
Mississippi Supreme Court
ERROR to the Circuit Court of Hinds County. Hon. S. S. Calhoon, Judge. The nature of the action and the effect of the evidence are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court.
Read the full summary
ERROR to the Circuit Court of Hinds County. Hon. S. S. Calhoon, Judge. The nature of the action and the effect of the evidence are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court. Two instructions given for the plaintiffs below, and excepted to by the defendant, who is the plaintiff in error here, were as follows : — “ 1. If the jury believe from the evidence that it was the custom of the merchants of Jackson, and of the plaintiffs, that accounts were to become due and payable on the first day of January of the year succeeding that in which the goods were sold, and that there was no…
1Opinion of the CourtChalmeRS, J.
Robinson & Stevens sold goods, during the year, which were delivered to Hendricks, but which were charged to one Dulaney, who verbally became responsible for them before sale, and upon whose credit the account was opened. They instituted suit for the recovery of their value against Dulaney, but were defeated, upon the ground that he was a mere surety or guarantor, and his undertaking, being verbal, was void. They now bring this action against Hendricks, the party for whose benefit the account was opened, and who received and used the goods. It is evident that he is in no manner affected by…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Porterfield v. ButlerMississippi Supreme Court · 1872
3Cited by11 opinions
- Livingston v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
- Meginnes v. McChesneySupreme Court of Iowa · 1916
- Morris v. NortonCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1896
- Villa v. Corte de Distrito de San JuanSupreme Court of Puerto Rico · 1933
- Williams v. AutenNebraska Supreme Court · 1901
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.