Obrázky stránek
PDF
ePub

FORM No. 654 For balance on goods sold and delivered at an agreed price. (In Standard L. Co. v. Miller & V. L. Co., 21 Okla. 617; 96 Pac. 761.)

[Title of court and cause.]

Plaintiff complains of defendant, and for cause of action alleges: 1. [Allegation of incorporation of plaintiff and defendant corporations.]

2. That during the months of February and March, 1905, plaintiff, at the special instance and request of the defendant, sold and delivered to defendant certain goods, wares, and merchandise at an agreed price of $900.25, which price was the reasonable market value there of; that no part of said account has been paid, except the sum of $698.97; that there now remains due and unpaid on said account the sum of $296.28, with seven per cent interest thereon from June 7,

1905.

Wherefore [etc.].

FORM No. 655-To recover interest on a balance due on an account stated. (In Tootle v. Wells, 39 Kan. 452; 18 Pac. 692.)

[Title of court and cause.]

1. [Introductory part and averment as to plaintiffs as partners.]

2. That defendant, J. W., at various times between the 1st day of July, 1883, and the 1st day of April, 1884, bought various bills of goods, wares, and merchandise from plaintiffs, and between the 1st day of November, 1883, and the 15th day of September, 1885, made various payments on the same, a full and detailed statement of said purchases and payments being hereto annexed, marked "Exhibit A," and made a part hereof.

3. That it was agreed and understood between plaintiffs and defendant at the time of the receipt by defendant of the invoices of each of said bills of goods and the bills rendered therefor by plaintiffs before the maturity of each of said bills of goods that the amount of each of said bills remaining due and unpaid at the maturity thereof would draw interest from that date at the rate of ten per cent per

annum.

4. That the total amount of said interest as above specified from the maturity of each of said bills of goods to the 14th day of September, 1885, upon the balance remaining unpaid at the various times set out in said exhibit A, is $129.20.

5. That defendant is indebted to plaintiff in the sum of $129.20 for

interest, as aforesaid, which defendant has refused, and still refuses, to pay, though often requested so to do.

Wherefore, plaintiffs ask judgment against defendant for the sum of $129.20, with interest thereon from September 14, 1885, and costs of suit. A. B., Attorney for plaintiff.

FORM No. 656-Against foreign corporation, on an account stated for debt. (In O'Brien v. Big Casino G. M. Co., 9 Cal. App. 283; 99 Pac. 209.) [Title of court and cause.]

Plaintiff complains, and alleges:

1. That at all times herein mentioned the above-named defendant, the Big Casino Gold Mining Company, was, and now is, a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the state of Washington, and transacting and carrying on business in the county of Tuolumne, state of California.

2. That within the two years immediately preceding the commencement of this action, at the said county of Tuolumne, the defendant became indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of $500, on an account stated, for services rendered to defendant by plaintiff at the special instance and request of defendant; that no part of said sum of $500 has ever been paid, and the whole thereof is now owing and unpaid from defendant to plaintiff.

Wherefore, plaintiff prays judgment against defendant for the sum of $500, and costs of suit. E. W. Holland,

[Verification.]

Attorney for plaintiff.

FORM No. 657-Against husband and wife, for goods sold to wife for her separate estate.

[Title of court and cause.]

The plaintiff complains of the defendants, and alleges:

1. That between the

day of

19 and the

"

19 at

9

"

9

day of the plaintiff sold and delivered to the defendant W. X., who then was and still is the wife of Y. X., at her request, materials used for the building of a house upon and for the benefit of her separate lands and property.

2. That said materials were of the agreed price and value [or were reasonably worth the sum] of $

3. [As in paragraph 3, form No. 651.] [Concluding part.]

[ocr errors]

FORM No. 658-By an assignee, for the price of stock and fixtures of a store, payable in instalments.

[Title of court and cause.]

The plaintiff complains of the defendant, and alleges:

19 at

"

"

Street, in

1. That on the day of one L. M. sold and delivered to the defendant the stock and fixtures of the grocerystore at No. the property of said L. M., and bargained, sold, and relinquished to the defendant the good-will of the business theretofore carried on by said L. M. there. 2. That the defendant agreed to pay to the said L. M. the sum of therefor in half-yearly payments, on the months of

$

days of the

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

thereafter.

3. [As in paragraph 3, form No. 651.]

4. That thereafter and before the commencement of this action, the said L. M. assigned to this plaintiff the indebtedness of the defendant therefor, of which the defendant was duly notified.

[Concluding part.]

FORM No. 659-On an assigned debt due to a partnership.

(In Suddarth v. Empire Lime Co., 79 Mo. App. 585.)

[Title of court and cause.]

For his cause of action against defendant, plaintiff alleges: That on the day of January, 1895, the defendant was indebted to plaintiff in the sum of $456 in this, that in the year 1894, and while the defendant was engaged in the manufacture of lime in the county of Lincoln, state of Missouri, the plaintiff and one P. J. Blair were engaged as partners, under the firm name and style of Suddarth & Blair, in dealing in cordwood in said county of Lincoln; that at said time said firm and the said defendant entered into an agreement whereby said firm agreed to furnish the defendant a large amount of cordwood in said county of Lincoln, for which the defendant agreed to pay said firm the sum of $1.70 per cord for the amount of wood said firm should furnish; that in pursuance of said agreement said firm did furnish to defendant 1084 cords of wood on the day of October, 1894, and 1592 cords of wood on the day of November, 1894, all of which wood the defendant received at its works in Lincoln County, Missouri, and promised to pay for at the price per cord aforesaid, in all the sum of $456; that on the 2d day of January, 1895, said firm demanded payment of said debt, but defend

ant failed and refused to pay the same or any part thereof, and the same still remains due and unpaid; that afterwards said firm duly assigned its said claim against defendant to plaintiff for value received, and plaintiff is now the owner thereof and entitled to payment.

Wherefore, plaintiff prays judgment for said sum of $456, with interest thereon from January 2, 1895, and costs of suit.

Wm. A. Dudley, and
Martin & Woolfolk,
Attorneys for plaintiff.

[Verification.]

FORM No. 660-For goods sold and delivered by a corporation to a partner ship, and to a partner as an individual.

(In Redwood City S. Co. v. Whitney, 153 Cal. 421; 95 Pac. 885.)

[Title of court.]

Redwood City S. Co., a corporation, plaintiff,

V.

Albert H. Whitney and Arthur L. Whitney, copartners, doing business under the name and style of C. E. Whitney & Co., and Arthur L. Whitney, defendants.

Plaintiff complains of the defendants, and for cause of action alleges:

1. [Averment as to incorporation of plaintiff company.]

2. [Averment as to defendants, copartners, etc.]

3. That within two years last past the plaintiff, at the special instance and request of defendants, sold and delivered to defendants goods, wares, and merchandise; that the reasonable value of said goods, wares, and merchandise so sold and delivered was the sum of $2,410.

4. That the defendants have not paid for said goods, wares, and merchandise, nor any part thereof, nor have they or any of them paid said sum of $2,410, or any part thereof, though often requested so to do.

Wherefore, plaintiff prays judgment against defendants for the sum of $2,410, with interest from the date of the commencement of this action at the rate of seven per cent per annum, and for costs of suit. George C. Ross, Attorney for plaintiff.

§ 321. ANSWERS.

FORM No. 661-Denial of plaintiff's title.

[Title of court and cause.]

The defendant answering the plaintiff's complaint [or petition]: Denies that the goods, wares, or merchandise mentioned therein, or any thereof, were the property of the plaintiff when sold to this defendant; but alleges that the same were then the property of one L. M., who alone, and not the plaintiff, sold the same to this defendant.

FORM No. 662-Defense that crcdit is unexpired.

[Title of court and cause.]

The defendant alleges that said sale was made upon a credit agreement, whereby the defendant was given the term of

"

months from the day of 19, in which to pay for said goods; that said time or credit period had not expired at the commencement of this action.

[Etc.]

FORM No. 663-Defense reducing value [or amount promised], and pleading payment [or offer to pay].

[Title of court and cause.]

[After introductory part:]

Denies that he, defendant, promised to pay the plaintiff the sum of $ [stating the amount alleged in the complaint], or any greater sum than $ [Or, Denies that the goods furnished were of the value alleged in the complaint, or of any greater value than $

.]

day of

9

Defendant alleges that on the , 19 he paid to plaintiff said last-named sum. [Or, That on said date (stating when), and at (stating where), tender of said last-named sum was made to the plaintiff, who then, and ever since has, refused to accept.]

[Concluding part.]

« PředchozíPokračovat »