Horton v. Arnold
Wisconsin Supreme Court
APPEAL from tbe County Court for Winnebago County. Action on a note in the following form ; “ Eor value received, I promise to pay Charles Wormley one hundred and fifty dollars, on demand — to be paid in meat, &c., out of my market. Erederiok Arnold.” The note was indorsed by the payee to the plaintiff.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from tbe County Court for Winnebago County. Action on a note in the following form ; “ Eor value received, I promise to pay Charles Wormley one hundred and fifty dollars, on demand — to be paid in meat, &c., out of my market. Erederiok Arnold.” The note was indorsed by the payee to the plaintiff. The answer alleges in substance, 1. A want of consideration for the note. 2. That on and before the day of the date of the note, said Wormley, and others in collusion with him, falsely and fraudulently represented to the defendant that a certain wooden building then standing and being at a…
1Opinion of the Court
*220 By the Gourt,
Cole, J.
Several of the objections taken to tbe admission of tbe depositions of Horton and Wormley are not true in point of fact, as an examination of tbe record will show. It is claimed that tbe certificate of the commissioner was not sufficient for tbe reason that it does not state that tbe witnesses were sworn to testify to tbe truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth ; nor does it state that the depositions were reduced to writing by the commissioner, or- deponents, or some disinterested party in his presence or under his direction. The commissioner certifies that…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Case v. HallNew York Supreme Court · 1840
3Cited by10 opinions
- Smith v. HughesWisconsin Supreme Court · 1880
- Dennis v. City of McMinnvilleOregon Supreme Court · 1928
- Oakes v. Estate of BuckleyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1880
- Lacy v. JohnsonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1883
- Bardeen v. MarkstrumWisconsin Supreme Court · 1885
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.