M. Cornhauser & Co. v. Roberts
Wisconsin Supreme Court
APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Marinette County. The following statement of the case was . prepared by Mr. Justice Tatloe as a part of the opinion: The plaintiff and respondent is a corporation, and brought this action against the appellants and defendants to recover for the value of goods, wares, and merchandise alleged to have been sold to them as copartners.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Marinette County. The following statement of the case was . prepared by Mr. Justice Tatloe as a part of the opinion: The plaintiff and respondent is a corporation, and brought this action against the appellants and defendants to recover for the value of goods, wares, and merchandise alleged to have been sold to them as copartners. The complaint alleges, among other things, “that on February 23, 1882, the said defendants, as copartners, became indebted to the plaintiff on account of goods, wares, and merchandise sold and delivered by the plaintiff to the…
1Opinion of the CourtTaylob, J.
Under the first assignment of error, the learned counsel for the appellants contend that the court has not found that the defendants were indebted as copart-ners to the plaintiff for the goods sold, and insist that the judgment is based upon an estoppel as to the defendant Diamond, which, under the facts proved, prevents him from alleging, as to this particular debt due the plaintiff, that he was not a partner of his codefendant. If we understand the claim of the learned counsel for the appellants, it is that in a case where it is conceded or established upon the trial that one or more of…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Rogers v. KingNew York Supreme Court · 1873
3Cited by1 opinion
- Hartney v. GoslingWyoming Supreme Court · 1902