Combs v. Pulliam

Appellate Court of Illinois

Combs v. Pulliam

190 Ill. App. 350

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedJuly 2, 1914

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 190 Ill. App. 350 (Combs v. Pulliam) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Court of Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Combs v. Pulliam, 190 Ill. App. 350 (Ill. Ct. App. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Presiding Justice Thompson

delivered the opinion of the court.

2. Frauds, statute .of, § 119*—when statute need not be pleaded to be available as defense. Where the declaration in an action of assumpsit consists of the common counts only, it is not necessary to plead the statute of frauds in order to have the benefit of such statute. 3. Frauds, statute of, § 16*—what constitutes promise to answer for debt of another. Where goods were sold to a person, the promise of a third person, that he “would see that they were paid for, guarantee the payment,” was simply a promise to answer for the debt of another, and was not an original promise. 4. Bills and notes, § 215*—when indorser discharged. Where a buyer of goods gave a note therefor, indorsed by another, but such note was surrendered after maturity, and an unindorsed note of the buyer accepted, the indorser of the original note was not liable.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Mr. Presiding Justice Thompson

delivered the opinion of the court.

2. Frauds, statute .of, § 119*—when statute need not be pleaded to be available as defense. Where the declaration in an action of assumpsit consists of the common counts only, it is not necessary to plead the statute of frauds in order to have the benefit of such statute. 3. Frauds, statute of, § 16*—what constitutes promise to answer for debt of another. Where goods were sold to a person, the promise of a third person, that he “would see that they were paid for, guarantee the payment,” was simply a promise to answer for the debt of another, and was not an original promise. 4. Bills and notes, § 215*—when indorser discharged. Where a buyer of goods gave a note therefor, indorsed by another, but such note was surrendered after maturity, and an unindorsed note of the buyer accepted, the indorser of the original note was not liable.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

190 Ill. App. 350, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/combs-v-pulliam-illappct-1914.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack