First Nat. Bank v. Newton
Supreme Court of Colorado
Error to District Court, Pueblo County. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
Macon, C.
In the summer and fall of 1882 the defendants in error were partners, doing business in the city of Pueblo, under the firm name of Todd & Fairchild; defendant Newton being a silent part-member, and Todd & Fairchild the ostensible members. During the months of August and September of that year the firm had overdrawn its account with plaintiff in error to the. extent of $.952, and on the 15th day of September of the same year executed a note to the plaintiff, signed by P. B. Fairchild and S. E. Todd, and with the firm name of Todd & Fairchild, for $1,500, due at ninety days, bearing…
Also in this document: Per curiam.
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Sheehy v. Mandeville & JamessonSupreme Court of the United States · 1810
- Tobey v. BarberNew York Supreme Court · 1809
- The KimballSupreme Court of the United States · 1866
- Johnson v. WeedNew York Supreme Court · 1812
- McMurray v. TaylorSupreme Court of Missouri · 1860
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- A. Leschen & Sons Rope Co. v. Mayflower Gold Mining & Reduction Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1909
- Lowell Staats Mining Company, Inc. v. Philadelphia Electric CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1989
- Lomax v. Colorado National BankSupreme Court of Colorado · 1909
- Globe Express Co. v. TaylorSupreme Court of Colorado · 1916
- Lowell Staats Mining Co. v. Philadelphia Electric Co.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1989
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.