Miller v. Neimerick
Illinois Supreme Court
ERROR TO ST. CEAIR. This was an action of assumpsit, tried at the March term, 1857, of the St. Olair Circuit Court. The declaration has a count for goods sold, work done, money lent, money paid, and an account stated. Defendant, Eckert, plead the general issue, and gave notice of items of set-off: The issues of fact were tried by consent by the court, who found for the defendant. Plaintiff moved for a new trial, which was overruled.
Read the full summary
ERROR TO ST. CEAIR. This was an action of assumpsit, tried at the March term, 1857, of the St. Olair Circuit Court. The declaration has a count for goods sold, work done, money lent, money paid, and an account stated. Defendant, Eckert, plead the general issue, and gave notice of items of set-off: The issues of fact were tried by consent by the court, who found for the defendant. Plaintiff moved for a new trial, which was overruled. It was further admitted that there were payments on drafts not credited, or credited in part, which plaintiff sought to explain by the admissions of Neimerick,…
1Opinion of the CourtSkinner, J.
Miller sued Neimerick and Eckert, as late partners, upon a book account. On the trial, Miller offered in evidence a written statement, made by Neimerick after the dissolution of the partnership, admitting a balance due from the firm of Neimerick & Eckert to Miller. The court rejected the evidence, and judgment was rendered for the defendants.
The question is broadly presented whether admissions of one partner made after the dissolution of the partnership, relating to partnership transactions arising prior to the dissolution, are admissible to charge the several members of the dissolved firm.…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Winslow v. NewlanIllinois Supreme Court · 1867
- Scott v. Mundy & ScottSupreme Court of Iowa · 1922
- Wilson v. WhittenAppellate Court of Illinois · 1901
- Feigley v. WhitakerOhio Supreme Court · 1872
- Peoria Scrap Iron Co. v. A. Cohen & SonsAppellate Court of Illinois · 1904