Sweet, Dempster & Co. v. Ervin & Co.
Opinion
Counsel for appellee contends that by the contract in tin's case the defendants recognized the plaintiff as an artificial person, by contracting for the goods. It is true the petition avers that the defendants bought goods of Sweet, Dempster & Co., at an agreed price, but that plaintiff was a corporation, or partnership, or that defendants recognized it as such, nowhere appears. We think the case is within the rule of the authority above cited, and that the statute implies that such averment should be made.
Neversed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
54 Iowa 101 (Sweet, Dempster & Co. v. Ervin & Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.