Cross v. Garrett
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Scott District Court. On the 13th of October, 1871, the plaintiff filed his petition, alleging that on the 5th of April, 1869, at Bridge-ton, Maine, he sold and delivered to the defendants, Hugh Garrett and J. T. Webb, who were at that time, as he was informed and believed, about to engage in the business of manufacturing boots and shoes at Davenport, certain machinery, tools, patterns, pulleys, lasts, etc., for $2,554.95, and that it was agreed at the time of…
Read the full summary
Appeal from Scott District Court. On the 13th of October, 1871, the plaintiff filed his petition, alleging that on the 5th of April, 1869, at Bridge-ton, Maine, he sold and delivered to the defendants, Hugh Garrett and J. T. Webb, who were at that time, as he was informed and believed, about to engage in the business of manufacturing boots and shoes at Davenport, certain machinery, tools, patterns, pulleys, lasts, etc., for $2,554.95, and that it was agreed at the time of sale that the title to said property should remain in plaintiff until the whole of said sum should be paid; that no part…
1Opinion of the CourtDay, J.
The defendant requested the court to submit to the jury the following instructions:
l. instructions: refusal of. “1. If you find from the evidence that the plaintiff Cross at the time he sold the property to Webb (if he did so se^) knew that the said Webb had made or entere¿ into a business arrangement with the defendant Garrett, whereby he (Webb) intended to bring said property from the possession of Cross and place it in a partnership business with Garrett, and that Cross parted with said property by reason of such intended partnership, and that said business as understood by Cross was…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Hanners v. McClellandSupreme Court of Iowa · 1888
- Asbach v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railway Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1892
- Brannum v. O'ConnorSupreme Court of Iowa · 1889
- Halley v. TichenorSupreme Court of Iowa · 1903