Salisbury v. Gillett

3 Ill. 290
CourtIllinois Supreme Court
DecidedJune 15, 1840
StatusPublished

This text of 3 Ill. 290 (Salisbury v. Gillett) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Illinois Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Salisbury v. Gillett, 3 Ill. 290 (Ill. 1840).

Opinion

Lockwood, Justice,

delivered the opinion of the Court:

This was an action of debt commenced by Salisbury & Collins against Gillett Avery, by petition and summons.

The defendants pleaded nil debet, and the cause was, by consent of parties, tried by the Court without a jury. On the trial of the cause, the plaintiffs produced and read a note, of which the following is a copy, to wit:

“St. Louis, March 29th, 1837. — Six months after date, we promise to pay Salisbury & Collins, at the agency of the Commercial Bank of Cincinnati, in St. Louis, two hundred and forty-nine dollars, without defalcation, and for value received.
“ Gillett & Aveby.”

The plaintiffs proved, that defendants were partners in trade, and doing business under the name of Gillett & Avery, and also proved by a witness, that he had heard Charles Collins say, that he had a partner in St. Louis named Salisbury, in a shoe-store, and that he had seen a notice of a partnership in a newspaper. He believed he had been in their store in St. Louis; but witness did not know the Christian name of Salisbury. Upon this testimony, the Court below gave judgment for defendants.

If the note had been payable to Collins & Co., and the action brought in the names of Collins & Salisbury, proof would have been necessary, to show that Salisbury was one of the firm of Collins & Co.

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

Related

McGregor, Darling & Curtis v. Cleveland
5 Wend. 475 (New York Supreme Court, 1830)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
3 Ill. 290, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/salisbury-v-gillett-ill-1840.