Taylor v. Coffing
Illinois Supreme Court
This was a bill in chancery, filed by Churchill Coffing and John H. Coffing, against Edmund D. Taylor, in the Circuit Court of La Salle county, on the 3d day of April, 1856. The bill sets forth, that in the month of December, 1847, Edmund D. Taylor, Isaac D. Harmon, and the orator, Churchill Coffing, entered into copartnership, for the purpose of carrying on mercantile and other business at Peru, Illinois.
Read the full summary
This was a bill in chancery, filed by Churchill Coffing and John H. Coffing, against Edmund D. Taylor, in the Circuit Court of La Salle county, on the 3d day of April, 1856. The bill sets forth, that in the month of December, 1847, Edmund D. Taylor, Isaac D. Harmon, and the orator, Churchill Coffing, entered into copartnership, for the purpose of carrying on mercantile and other business at Peru, Illinois. That written articles of copartnership were drawn up, and signed by Taylor, Hannon, and Churchill Coffing, respectively, and therein it was, among other things, stipulated and agreed that…
1Opinion of the CourtScates, C. J.
In the former case between these parties, 16 Ill. R. 471, et seq., we laid down the principles governing the relation in which these parties stood as partners, and property and effects like these about which they were contracting.
We think, upon reconsideration, that the principles there laid down, and applied to the subject matter of this contract, under the surrounding circumstances, are correct, and are applicable to govern the property and relation here existing. The interpretation given the assignment of the interest of defendant, C. Coffing, in “ all property, debts, accounts, notes,…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Johnson v. JacksonCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1908
- Underwood v. OverstreetCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1920
- Doherty v. Schipper & Block, Inc.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1910
- Dovey v. DoveyNebraska Supreme Court · 1914