Wittram v. Wormer
| Decision Date | 30 June 1867 |
| Parties | FRANCIS WITTRAMv.ABRAM VAN WORMER. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of St. Clair county; the Hon. JOSEPH GILLESPIE, Judge, presiding.
The facts in this case are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court.
Mr. WM. H. UNDERWOOD, for the appellant.
Mr. N. NILES, for the appellee.
This was an action brought by Van Wormer against De Clausel & Wittram, upon the following note:
??after date we promise to pay to the order of ourselves $979.86 for value received, negotiable and payable without defalcation or discount.
DE CLAUSEL & WITTRAM.”
Indorsed, “DE CLAUSEL & WITTRAM.”
On the trial the plaintiff, Van Wormer, testified that he was formerly in partnership in running a saw-mill with the defendant De Clausel; that, in March, 1860, he went out of the firm, and afterward the defendant, Wittram, took his place, constituting the firm of De Clausel & Wittram; that they dissolved their partnership on the 1st of January, 1861; that, on the 20th of December, 1860, De Clausel gave this note to witness in payment of the balance due on a quantity of logs sold by him to the firm of De Clausel & Wittram, at the formation of their partnership.
The defendant, Wittram, testified that he never saw or heard of the note until this suit was brought, in 1867, and that the logs in question were a part of the stock put into the firm by De Clausel, on the formation of the partnership of De Clausel & Wittram; that he put in $3,418 in cash, and De Clausel put in the logs and mill.
The question in the case is, whether the sale of the logs by Van Wormer, at the dissolution of the old partnership, was to De Clausel alone, or to the firm, afterward formed, of De Clausel and Wittram.
On the trial the defendant asked the court to instruct the jury as follows:
“One partner has no right to give the note of the firm for his own private debt, without the consent of his copartners; and if this note was given by De Clausel to pay for logs, etc., which De Clausel put in the firm as a part of his (De Clausel's) capital stock, then the jury should find for defendants, unless Wittram consented to the making and indorsing of this note.”
The instruction was refused.
Probably, the court refused this instruction, from the opinion that the same idea...
To continue reading
Request your trial