Cross v. Carey
Illinois Supreme Court
This declaration was in assumpsit for goods and chattels sold and delivered, and for money lent; damages laid at $500. The plea was the general issue and notice, that on trial of this cause, defendant below, Solomon Cross, would offer the following facts as a defense: That in June, 1853, Sarah Bennett, now Sarah Carey, one of the plaintiffs, was married to Allen Cross, son of Solomon Cross; that said Sarah and Allen lived on the farm of said Solomon Cross, from said marriage…
Read the full summary
This declaration was in assumpsit for goods and chattels sold and delivered, and for money lent; damages laid at $500. The plea was the general issue and notice, that on trial of this cause, defendant below, Solomon Cross, would offer the following facts as a defense: That in June, 1853, Sarah Bennett, now Sarah Carey, one of the plaintiffs, was married to Allen Cross, son of Solomon Cross; that said Sarah and Allen lived on the farm of said Solomon Cross, from said marriage to the death of said Allen, which occurred October 5th, 1856; that at the time of said Allen’s death he left said Sarah…
1Opinion of the CourtWalker, J.
This was an action of assumpsit, for goods and chattels sold and delivered, and for money lent by appellee, Sarah Carey, while sole and unmarried. It appears from the evidence in the record, that she was the widow of Allen Cross, who had died intestate, leaving no child or children or descendants. That she as his widow sold the property of her deceased husband, at public vendue, and appellant became the purchaser of the property, to recover the price of which this suit was brought. That letters of administration were never granted upon the estate of her deceased husband.
It is urged that…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Riley v. LoughreyIllinois Supreme Court · 1859
3Cited by3 opinions
- York v. YorkIllinois Supreme Court · 1865
- Hutton v. PorrovecchioAppellate Court of Illinois · 1914
- Shomo v. Zeigler, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Schuylkill County1874