Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1841-1853, 1851-06-19
Supreme Court Decisions, May Term, 1851.
[REroHTrD coBuRN EsQl

TUESDAY, May 81, 1851.
Harrey v. Latin. Error Union Circuit Court SMITH,
]. Assumpsit upon note. Five pleas filed First
general ISSUE second payment, third consideration
fourth general plea Of fraud, fifth special plea that
McCary owed debt to the plaintiff and defendant,
for this he executed his note to the defendant aone and
the defendant in consideration of thus holding the note
of McClary, gave the plaintiff his note for the
due the latter of the McClary note that McCary
was nsolvent and that his debt could not be collected
that diligence had been used; &C. Replicaton-that
the executed By the defendant to the plaintiff
for the sum due him out of the McClary debit and that
the defendant undertook collect the latter has
responsibility, concluding with veTication. Rejon-
er, that defendant did not take the note on has
spOnsbility. Concluding to the country. Verdict and
judgment for defendant.
Held, First-That the fifth plea is bad leading to
immatea issue, and for setting up oral contemporaries
Gus agreements to control q written instrument, the
being made payable uncondtonaly. Second, that
the plaintiffs interest in the McClary debt was sui
6cien consideration for the note sued on. Judgment
reversed.
The Madison Insurance Company v. Forsyth. Error
Jefferson Circuit Court. SMITH, j. Debt by the In
surance Co., upon promissory note made by Forsyth
Williams to said Company, for Sl6S,9O; payable in
five months, dated first OF March, lS4. On the 3lst of
August, 1910, said company discounted for Forsyth
bill Of exchange for 81 600 dated August % 1910, pay
able in four months paying therefor $780, in notes Tor
the payment Of 81, 81, 50, and $40 each. The follow
ing IS sample:
'In Indiana, Illinois, or Ohio Bank notes we promise
to pay S. c. King bearer one dollar on demand at
our Office, in Madison, Indiana. January LIST, 1910.
Geo. LEONARD, VICToR KING,
JOHN KING. JOHN WooDBURN."
Said given for money and for the purpose of
being put in circulation In January S4 this bill of ex
change was satisfied by the payment of money and
note which afterwards renewed by the note sued
Trial and judgment for defendant.
Held, First-That the Statute of Feb. d. 1870. pro-
hbtng the issuing and circulation of small notes, for
bid the issuing of such those of King Wood
burn Second, The consideration Of the note sucd on
being illegal, the contract is void. Judgment affirmed
ShOup v. F. a. ConceH, administrator Of j. Con-
lrelI. Appeal Franklin Crcuit Court. BLAcKFcRD,
]. Foreign attachment by ]. Conwe against Shoup;
levy property and return, January term, lS49. T. A
Conwell, his administrator appeared at August term,
S49 suggested the death of j. Conwel obtained an or
der of revvor and proved order of publication had been
obeyed At the February term 1850, both parties APP
peared, defendant refusing to make defence Judg-
meut rendered for plaintiff. Defendant assigns for
that the suit having abacd by the death of the
original plaintiff, was not revived by scire facias
Held. Frst-Tbat the appearance of the defendant
after the order of revivo and the suffering judgment
be rendered against him without urging his objection:
waived his right to make it subsequently, Second
That the of the clerk in the transcript that
a motion made and overruled if such statement is
incorporated in bill of exceptions, is not regarded
as a part of the record Judgment affirmed
PGUsoas The State. Error. Rush Circuit Court.
BLACKBOARD. ]. Indictment for betting on an election
and losing s25. Plea not guilty Verdict guilty and
fine. Defendant bought mare for 500, payable when
Gen. Taylor should he elected President, and in due
to he worth less than $50
Held, First-That this contract was wager the
result of the election, and ndietabe. Second-Thal
the charged have been lost need not he
proved, proof of the loss of any less being sufficient
Judgment affirmed.
sRGackv The State Baak Error Cass Circuit Court.
PEIsxrNs..J- Assumpst by the Bank against Williams,
Chopin &Beach. partners under the name of ''H. b.
Williams & Co :" upon bills of exchange drawn by S. P.
Williams the order of Williams & Hitchcock II.
b. Williams & Co. said bills being drawn under letter
eoid firm, IN he lv
liams & Hitchcock. Acceptance and payment refused
10y H. B. Williams s. Co. General issue, trial and judg-
ment for plaintiff for over $4,000.
The following is the letter of credit drawn and signed
by II. B. Williams:
ROCHESTER, Sept. A, 1S41.
The bearer, Samuel p. Williams, of the firm OF
Williams & Hitchcock authorized to draw to the
amount of twenty thousand dollars, such times he
pleases. II. b. WILLIAMS & Co.
The bills Of exchange signed by p Williams
across the face H. B. Williams signed his name.
/ Held, 1>t. An authority draw bill is virtually an
acceptance Of the bill drawn in conformity TO 1t. I'd Ii
bill he accepted ia the naNe OF one partner only, and
not in that Of the firm, yet if the h be addressed TO the
hrm, all the members Of 1T, whether dormant or not viii
he bound by such acceptance. 81. One partner will be
bound by the fraud of his cpartner in contracts relating
tn the partnership made with innocent third persons
Prima facie the firm of II. b. Williams s. Co. is liable
and having failed to show that these accommoda
ton bills their liability is fixed: partner by accommo
dation acceptance bind his copartner without h
eonsent If 1t pass into the hand OF bona de endorsed
Tor value. Such the Bank.
The Bank receipied for 10 800 bushels of wheat FOL
the payment of fifteen drafts drawn by S. P Williams
and Williams & Hitchcock, some accepted by II.
| Williams alone some by III. b Williams & Co. Al
agreement of the date, Dec g. SAL TO the set
Element of drafts concludes follows: ''ln case thu
drafts paid arranged above, the said whea
be sold aud the proceeds applied towards the pay
ment of said draltsn These drafts paid
ranged; the Bank sold the wheat and applied the pro
ceeds the draftsof X. b. Williams alone. This tia
below held be right 1t is erroneous, the abov
III these
but it applied them to all the bills pro rata Judgmen
reversed.
WEDNESDAY, May %, 1851.