Crosthwait v. Ross
Tennessee Supreme Court
The facts of this case as exhibited by the record are, so far as they are necessary to be stated to present the point determined by the court, substantially as follows.
Read the full summary
The facts of this case as exhibited by the record are, so far as they are necessary to be stated to present the point determined by the court, substantially as follows. Alfred Hartwell and George D. Crosthwait, two practising physicians in the county of Rutherford, entered into articles of partnership, which were as follows, to wit: “Articles of agreement for a partnership to commence orí the 14th day of January, 1834, between Alfred Hartwell and George D. Crosthwait, of Murfreesboro’, Tennessee; “Article 1. The partnership to continue under the firm of Hartwell and Crosthwait for two years…
1Opinion of the CourtTurley, J.
This is an action brought by the. defendant in error to recover judgment against the plaintiff- upon a note for the sum of three hundred and fifty dollars. This note was executed by one Alfred Hartwell, who was a partner in the practice of physic with George D. Crosthwait, the plaintiff in error; it was an accommodation note for his own benefit, and not for the use of the firm. The note was discounted in bank upon the endorsement of Ross, the defendant, and the proceeds applied by Hartwell to his own use. The endorser, took up the note at maturity, and has brought this suit to charge…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Livingston v. RooseveltNew York Supreme Court · 1809
- Foot v. SabinNew York Supreme Court · 1821
3Cited by18 opinions
- Pease v. ColeSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1885
- Alley v. Bowen-Merrill Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1905
- Lee v. First National Bank of Fort ScottSupreme Court of Kansas · 1890
- Third National Bank v. SnyderMissouri Court of Appeals · 1881
- Ferguson v. ShepherdTennessee Supreme Court · 1853
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.