Godfrey v. Buckmaster
| Decision Date | 31 December 1838 |
| Citation | 1838 WL 2547,1 Scam. 447,2 Ill. 447 |
| Parties | BENJAMIN GODFREY, WINTHROP S. GILMAN, SIMEON RYDER, and CALEB STONE, plaintiffs in error,v.NATHANIEL BUCKMASTER, defendant in error. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
ON the 22d day of July, 1837, Nathaniel Buckmaster instituted a suit in assumpsit, in the Madison Circuit Court, against the plaintiffs in error and one John B. Glover, upon six promissory notes, made by the plaintiffs in error, and payable to the order of the defendant in error, Buckmaster. Process was executed upon all except Glover.
The declaration contains but one count, and is as follows:
“In the Circuit Court of Madison county, of August term, Anno Domini 1837.
+-------------------------+
¦State of Illinois, ¦)¦ ¦
+-------------------+-+---¦
¦ ¦)¦ss.¦
+-------------------+-+---¦
¦Madison County, ¦)¦ ¦
+-------------------------+
Benjamin Godfrey and Winthrop S. Gilman, trading and doing business in name of Godfrey, Gilman & Co., Simeon Ryder and Caleb Stone and John B. Glover, trading and doing business in name of Stone & Co., were summoned to answer Nathaniel Buckmaster, of a plea of trespass on the case on promises, etc., and thereupon the said plaintiff, by his attorneys, Martin and Murdock, complains, for that whereas the said defendants, at Alton, to wit, at the county aforesaid, on the seventeenth day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and thirty-seven, made their six certain promissory notes, in writing, and thereto subscribed their proper handwritings, the date whereof is the day and year aforesaid, by one of which said promissory notes, the said defendants on or before the eighteenth day of May then next, promised to pay to the order of Nathaniel Buckmaster, one thousand dollars, for value received, with interest at the rate of ten per centum after due and payable. By another of said promissory notes, the said defendants on or before the eighteenth day of May then next, promised to pay to the order of Nathaniel Buckmaster, one thousand dollars for value received, with interest at the rate of ten per centum per annum, from the said eighteenth day of May, eighteen hundred and thirty-seven. By another of said promissory notes, the said defendants, on or before the eighteenth day of May then next, promised to pay to the order of N. Buckmaster, one thousand dollars for value received, with interest thereon at the rate of ten per centum after the said note becomes due and payable. By another of the said promissory notes, the said defendants, on or before the eighteenth day of May then next, promised to pay to the order of Nathaniel Buckmaster, one thousand dollars for value received, with interest at the rate of ten per centum per annum, from the said eighteenth day of May last. By another of said promissory notes, the said defendants, on or before the eighteenth day of May then next ensuing, promised to pay to the order of Nathaniel Buckmaster, one thousand dollars for value received, with interest at the rate of ten per centum per annum, from and after the said eighteenth day of May last. By another of said promissory notes, the said defendants, on or before the eighteenth day of May then next ensuing, promised to pay to the order of Nathaniel Buckmaster, one thousand dollars for value received, with interest at the rate of ten per centum, from and after the said eighteenth day of May aforesaid.
Nevertheless, the said defendants, not regarding their several promises and undertakings aforesaid, in form aforesaid made, not regarding the said several promissory notes, or any or either of them, or the said several sums of money, or any part thereof, to the said Nathaniel Buckmaster, the said plaintiff, have not paid, or any or either of them, or any part thereof, although the same to pay, they, the said defendants, have been often thereto requested, to wit, at the county aforesaid, but the same to pay have hitherto wholly neglected and refused, and still do refuse, to the damage of the said plaintiff, ten thousand dollars, therefore he brings suit, etc.
MARTIN & MURDOCK,
Att'ys of Plff.” At the August term of said Court, 1837, the Hon. Sidney Breese presiding, the plaintiffs in error, by Cowles and Krum, their attorneys, filed their demurrer to the foregoing declaration, “And for cause of demurrer say, that there is duplicity in said declaration of the plaintiffs in this, there are six distinct causes of action embraced and included in the same count; 2d, there are several promises and undertakings alleged in one count.”
To the demurrer there was a joinder, and the Court overruled the demurrer, and gave judgment for the defendant in error, (the clerk assessing the damages,) for the sum of $6,450 against the plaintiffs in error.
To reverse this judgment, the plaintiffs in error brought their cause to this Court, and assigned for error the overruling of the demurrer, and giving judgment for the defendant in error. There was a joinder in error by Buckmaster.
A. COWLES and J. M. KRUM, for the plaintiffs in error, relied upon the following...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of St. Louis v. United Railways Company of St. Louis
...Brady v. Spurck, 27 Ill. 482; Boyce v. Commission Co., 107 F. 58; People v. Tweed, 63 N.Y. 194; Bank v. Railroad, 41 Conn. 543; Godfrey v. Buckmaster, 2 Ill. 447; Longworthy v. Knapp, 4 Abb. Pr. (N.Y.) 117. objection to the form of the petition was waived by answering and going to trial wit......
-
People Ex Rel. Turner v. Purviance
...a subject comprehends multiplicity of matter, to avoid prolixity, the law allows general pleading: Chitty on Pleading, 235; Godfrey v. Buckmaster, 1 Scam. 447; Zimmerman v. Wead, 18 Ill. 304; Brady v. Spruck, 27 Ill. 478; The People v. Shaw, 14 Ill. 476; Kipp v. Bell, 86 Ill. 577; The Peopl......
- Nordhaus v. Vandalia R. Co.
-
Chicago W.D. Ry. Co. v. Ingraham
...and against the defendant in the same character or capacity, they may not be joined in the same count of the declaration. Godfrey v. Buckmaster, 1 Scam. 447. At most it would be violative only of the rule in respect of duplicity in pleading, but which, in the state of pleadings here, it wil......