Wheeler v. Mceldowney
| Decision Date | 30 September 1871 |
| Citation | 60 Ill. 358,1871 WL 8151 |
| Parties | JOHN WHEELERv.HEZEKIAH MCELDOWNEY. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Bureau county; the Hon. EDWIN S. LELAND, Judge, presiding.
Messrs. ECKELS & KYLE, for the appellant.
Mr. M. KENDALL, for the appellee.
This was an action of assumpsit on a promissory note signed “George Faulkner & Co.” The declaration alleges that George Faulkner and John Wheeler were partners in business under the firm name of George Faulkner & Co., and as such, made the note in question. Faulkner was defaulted, and Wheeler pleaded, verifying the plea by affidavit, that he was not a partner of Faulkner, and not jointly liable with him as partner, on the note. A jury was waived and the case tried by the court, who found for the plaintiff, and rendered judgment against both the defendants for the amount of the note and interest.
To reverse this judgment the defendant Wheeler appeals, and the only question is, was Wheeler a partner with Faulkner at the time the note was executed?
To maintain the issue on the part of the plaintiff, he introduced in evidence the note, and a bond for a deed for certain mill property, executed by one E. W. Grosvenor to “George Faulkner and John Wheeler, composing the firm of George Faulkner & Co.,” with the knowledge and consent of Wheeler. This bond was duly recorded. Wheeler made the most, if not all, the payments on the property, and, when reimbursed by Faulkner, the property was to be the property of Faulkner.
The note was executed for work done in the mill by the plaintiff as miller. Wheeler visited the mill several times after the purchase.
Faulkner testified that Wheeler never had any interest in the mill business; that he alone was interested in that, and assumed the firm name of George Faulkner & Co., in which to transact business; the firm was himself, and no other; Wheeler never authorized him to use his name, nor did he ever represent to others, or to the plaintiff, that Wheeler had any interest in the mill business; that his interest only extended to the real estate.
It is insisted by appellant that this evidence is not sufficient to charge Wheeler upon the note. We think differently. The bond for a deed to the mill property, taken with the knowledge and consent of Wheeler, in which Faulkner and Wheeler are described as composing the firm of George Faulkner & Co., and put on record, was a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ashby v. Pinnow
...N.E. 325 (1932) (noting that the "records of the recorder's office are public records and open alike to all parties"); Wheeler v. McEldowney , 60 Ill. 358, 360 (1871) (concluding that the recording of a bond for a deed on commercial property constituted notice to the public); see also Lane ......
-
Ramsey v. Tully
...Ill. 401; Kirghtlinger v. Egan, 75 Ill. 141; Plummer v. Rigdon, 78 Ill. 222; Gilbert v. Bone, 79 Ill. 341. As to partnership: Wheeler v. McEldowney, 60 Ill. 358; Poole v. Fisher, 62 Ill. 181. WILSON, J. As the judgment of the court below must be reversed on other grounds, and the cause be r......
-
Hahlo v. Mayer
...1 Q. B. 97; Hinman v. Littell, 23 Mich. 484; Lindley on Part. 54, 181; Daniel on Neg. Inst., sec. 352; Bates on Part., sec. 90; Wheeler v. McEldowney, 60 Ill. 358; Story on Part., secs. 64, 192; Grieff v. Byrner, La. Ann. 631; Mershon v. Hobensack, 22 N. J. L. 372; Barrett v. Blackman, 53 G......
-
Prate v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co.
... ... constructive knowledge, of information contained in the ... public record. Wheeler v. McEldowney , 60 Ill. 358, ... 360 (1871) ... (holding that recording a bond for a deed on commercial ... property constituted notice to the ... ...