Legal Opinion

Pickett v. Handy

Colorado Court of Appeals

Decided September 15, 1894PublishedCited by 6 opinions

Appeal from the District Court of Fremont County.

1Opinion of the CourtThomson, J.

This action was brought against W. F. Littell and Charles H. Pickett, as partners, to recover 1968.88, for goods sold and delivered to the defendants by the plaintiffs. Littell made default. Pickett answered denying generally the allegations of the complaint. There was evidence given sufficient to warrant the jury in finding that Pickett, by his conduct and representations, justified the plaintiffs in believing that he was a partner of Littell, and in selling the goods in question to the supposed firm. There was also evidence tending to show that the plaintiffs were not entitled to re*296cover as…

2Cited by6 opinions

  1. Saavedra v. City of AlbuquerqueNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1959
  2. Harris v. HarrisNevada Supreme Court · 1944
  3. San Miguel Consolidated Gold Mining Co. v. BonnerSupreme Court of Colorado · 1905
  4. Sangster v. Van HeckAppellate Court of Illinois · 1976
  5. Walsh v. City of DenverColorado Court of Appeals · 1897

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API