Perkins v. Conley

4 Blackf. 187, 1836 Ind. LEXIS 34
CourtIndiana Supreme Court
DecidedDecember 24, 1836
StatusPublished

This text of 4 Blackf. 187 (Perkins v. Conley) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Perkins v. Conley, 4 Blackf. 187, 1836 Ind. LEXIS 34 (Ind. 1836).

Opinion

• DECLARATION in assumpsit by Thomas Conley and George W. Hume, trading under the firm of Conley Hume, against John Perkins. 1st count, That the defendant and one William S. Bussell, on, &c., made their promissory note, &c., and thereby jointly and severally promised to pay the said Conley & Hume the sum of, áre. By reason whereof the defendant [188]*188became liable, &c., and being so liable promised to pay, &c. 2d count, That the defendant, on, &c., made his other promissory note, and thereby promised to pay the said Conley fy Flume, the plaintiffs, the sum of, &c. By reason, &c. Breach, that the defendant had not paid, &c.

Demurrer to the first count: Causes, 1st, No profert; 2d, No averment of non-payment by Bussell; 3d, No averment that the note was payable to the plaintiffs by their partnership name. Demurrer to the second count: Causes, the first two above-named.

Held, that the counts were sufficient.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
4 Blackf. 187, 1836 Ind. LEXIS 34, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/perkins-v-conley-ind-1836.