Ijams v. Andrews
Decision Date | 11 February 1907 |
Docket Number | 1,283. |
Citation | 151 F. 725 |
Parties | IJAMS et al. v. ANDREWS. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
The plaintiffs in error were five of seven defendants named in the complaint of the defendant in error, in a suit to recover the amount of advances made by the Vigo County National Bank for their alleged use and benefit, and the writ of error is prosecuted from a judgment therein against the plaintiffs in error and another defendant, Gustav A. Conzman, who defaulted and declined to join in the writ. The remaining defendant named in the complaint was one George E. West, who was not made a party by service or appearance, and is not included in the judgment. Issue was joined between the present parties under the complaint in four paragraphs, two of which charged upon promissory notes signed by West and Miller, but averred to be the obligation of the seven defendants as associates one charged for money had and received, and the fourth averred facts of joint association for purposes stated and moneys advanced by the bank for the use and at the instance and request of all. The hearing was submitted to the court upon waiver of a jury-- the first-mentioned two paragraphs founded upon promissory notes being dismissed-- and special findings of fact were filed and judgment awarded thereupon.
Error is assigned for the conclusions of law upon the facts so found, which are preserved in the bill of exceptions-- with no further questions raised--and are substantially as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Darling v. Buddy
...286 S.W. 1112; Standard Drilling Co. v. Slate, 262 S.W. 969; James v. Stokes, 261 S.W. 868; Palliser v. Erhardt, 61 N.Y.S. 191; Ijams v. Andrews, 151 F. 725; Dierks Lumber v. Bruce, 239 S.W. 135; State ex rel. Pearson v. Railroad, 196 Mo. 536; Laney v. Fickel, 83 Mo.App. 60; Hunnewell v. Ca......
-
Refrigeration Engineering Co. v. McKay
...fixture contract was directly authorized by the other promoter, C. E. Loveless. 18 Am.Jur.2d Corporations, § 128 (1965); Ijams v. Andrews, 151 F. 725 (7th Cir. 1907). Clearly, C. E. Loveless is liable on the contract, which was in furtherance of the promotion, as a promoter of the contempla......
-
Hartsough v. Hirshheimer
...in the furtherance of the common object, is the act of all.' See, also, Goldsmith v. Koopman, 152 F. 173, 81 C.C.A. 465; Ijams v. Andrews, 151 F. 725, 81 C.C.A. 109; United States v. Baxter (C.C.) 46 F. Johnson v. Wallower, 15 Minn. 472 (Gil. 387). Upon the appeals in No. 2946 and No. 2948,......