Shufeldt v. Seymour
Illinois Supreme Court
This was an action of assumpsit, commenced by the appellees against the appellant and William S. Littell, by summons. The action was upon a promissory note, signed “ W. T. Shufeldt & Co.” The declaration charged the defendants below as co-partners, under the firm name and style of W. T. Shufeldt & Co., and contains a special count and the usual common counts.
Read the full summary
This was an action of assumpsit, commenced by the appellees against the appellant and William S. Littell, by summons. The action was upon a promissory note, signed “ W. T. Shufeldt & Co.” The declaration charged the defendants below as co-partners, under the firm name and style of W. T. Shufeldt & Co., and contains a special count and the usual common counts. The first or special count states that the defendants below made their promissory note' in writing, bearing date, etc., and delivered the same to the appellees, in and by which note the defendants below, by the name, style and…
1Opinion of the CourtCaton, C. J.
The, plea was a plea denying the execution of the instrument on which the action was brought. It did not put in issue the fact of the partnership, which was averred in the declaration. That fact could only be put in issue by a plea in abatement, properly verified, as directed by our statute. Warren v. Chambers, 12 Ill. R. 124. The execution of the note was put in issue, and that alone was in issue. That fact was abundantly proved on the trial, and the fact of partnership having been admitted by not filing a plea in abatement, it followed necessarily that the plaintiff was entitled to…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Bensley v. BrockwayAppellate Court of Illinois · 1888
- Huntington v. ChambersAppellate Court of Illinois · 1884
- Aultman & Taylor Co. v. WebberAppellate Court of Illinois · 1879