Choteau v. Raitt
Ohio Supreme Court
Error to the Supreme Court of Huron county. The original action in this case was commenced by the plaintiffs in error against the defendants, in assumpsit, in the court of common pleas of Huron county.
Read the full summary
Error to the Supreme Court of Huron county. The original action in this case was commenced by the plaintiffs in error against the defendants, in assumpsit, in the court of common pleas of Huron county. The first count in the declaration was special, upon a contract, of which the following is a copy: “Article of agreement, entered into at Detroit, State of Michigan, this Ocoto.ber 26, 1844, between Thomas Raitt, of Norwalk, State of Ohio, of one part, and P. Choteau, Jr. & Co., of New York, by William Brewster, of Detroit, aforesaid, of the other part: Witnesseth— “ 1. That the said Raitt does…
1Opinion of the CourtHitchcock, C. J.
The record in this case shows that the original suit was commenced by Pierre Choteau, Jr., John B. Sarpy, John F. A. Sanford, and Joseph A. Sire, under the name of P. Choteau, Jr. & Co. At the trial term of the court of common pleas, and before the trial was commenced, the counsel for the res]iective parties entered into a stipulation, which is as follows : “In this case it is matter of stipulation, that in event it appears that William Brewster should have ^joined as plaintiff, it shall not affect the suit or bar a recovery in the present form. Should Brewster be offered as a witness, and…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Munro Hotel Co. v. BroughOhio Court of Appeals · 1915
- Opinion No., Oklahoma Attorney General Reports1957