Schnebly v. Culter
Appellate Court of Illinois
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Peoria County; the Hon. T. ¡M¡. Shaw, J udge, presiding. Statement by Lacey, J. The appellee and one Cary E. ¡Robinson, on January 1,1883, entered into partnership, to be carried on in the city of Peoria, in general hardware and tin business, under the firm name of R. A. Culter & Company.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Peoria County; the Hon. T. ¡M¡. Shaw, J udge, presiding. Statement by Lacey, J. The appellee and one Cary E. ¡Robinson, on January 1,1883, entered into partnership, to be carried on in the city of Peoria, in general hardware and tin business, under the firm name of R. A. Culter & Company. On the 23d day of September, 1884, said Robinson also entered into partnership with appellants to carry on a hardware and tin business, in . which last mentioned firm the. said appellee had no interest. The last named firm was to continue five years, the appellants were to…
1Opinion of the CourtLacey, J.
The objections made by the appellants to the decree are that “when one person is a member of two different firms which have dealings with each other, a suit will not lie by one firm against the other either at law or equity Ofor an indebtedness of one firm to the other.” We do not regard this objection as sound. This is true as regards suits at law but not in equity.
If a suit in equity could not be brought by one firm against another under such circumstances, the creditor firm would be without remedy. Haven v. Wakefield, 39 Ill. 509, and Hall v. Kimball, 77 Ill. 161.
It is also insisted that…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Haven & White v. WakefieldIllinois Supreme Court · 1866
- Hall v. KimballIllinois Supreme Court · 1875
3Cited by2 opinions
- Rose v. BeckhamSupreme Court of Alabama · 1956
- Rankin v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1910