Hurd v. Tomkins
Supreme Court of Colorado
Appeal from, District Court of Lake County. In the complaint filed by H. H. Tomkins et al., it is alleged that plaintiffs were co-partners, and that as such co-partners they sold the defendants, Nathan S. Hurd and L. C. Rockwell et al., goods of the value of $3,746.22, upon open account.
Read the full summary
Appeal from, District Court of Lake County. In the complaint filed by H. H. Tomkins et al., it is alleged that plaintiffs were co-partners, and that as such co-partners they sold the defendants, Nathan S. Hurd and L. C. Rockwell et al., goods of the value of $3,746.22, upon open account. These goods were sold between the 1st day of September, 1884, and the 26th day of May, 1885, and that during that time $1,976.53 was paid upon said account, leaving a balance due of $1,769.69. It is also alleged in the complaint that the said materials and supplies were furnished for and in working and used…
1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice Hayt
At the trial it was practically conceded that the materials and supplies furnished were of the value stated in the complaint and that the same were used in and about the development of the Leo mine. It was and is claimed, however, that neither Hurd personally nor his interest in property was liable for this account. It is also contended that no interest should have been allowed upon the account. It is admitted that John W. Watson was one of the owners of the Leo mine up to Dec. 5, 1885, and that upon that day he sold to *396each' of the' defendants, Rockwell and Hurd, a one-thirty-second interest…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Manville v. ParksSupreme Court of Colorado · 1883
- Dwinel v. StoneSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1849
- Everitt v. ChapmanSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1827
- Clear Creek, Colorado, Gold & Silver Mining Co. v. RootSupreme Court of Colorado · 1871
3Cited by2 opinions
- Sturm v. UlrichCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1925
- Bryant-Link Co. v. W. H. Norris Lumber Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1933