Ballard v. Ridgely
Supreme Court of Iowa
Ridgely &al. brought their action in a plea of trespass on the case on promises against Ballard on a promissory note. Judgment was entered for the plaintiffs by consent of parties, and a bill of exceptions was thereupon filed by Ballard’s attorney for “that they failed to prove the individual names of the said firm aslaid in the declaration,” and that thereupon the Court decided that it was not necessary to prove the individual names of said firm, but only necessary to prove…
Read the full summary
Ridgely &al. brought their action in a plea of trespass on the case on promises against Ballard on a promissory note. Judgment was entered for the plaintiffs by consent of parties, and a bill of exceptions was thereupon filed by Ballard’s attorney for “that they failed to prove the individual names of the said firm aslaid in the declaration,” and that thereupon the Court decided that it was not necessary to prove the individual names of said firm, but only necessary to prove the existence of said firm.
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court —
Mason, C. J.
— This case has been submitted without argument,and even without stating the points relifeduponfartherthan they are contained in the bill of exceptions. The action below, however, it appears, was upon a promissory note given by the plaintiff in error to the firm of Ridgely and Bil-lon, by their partnership name. On the trial, the existence of the firm was proved, but not the individualnames ot the partners composing it. The Court *14decided this to be sufficient, and this decision was undoubtedly correct, being in direct accordance with the statute of this Territory in…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Morrison v. PeppermanSupreme Court of Iowa · 1900