Tony, I am trying to gather information and came across the following cases which are of interest. I have also posted them on the
Irons Surname board.
Shirts v. Irons, 37 Ind. 98, 1871 WL 5040 (1871)
"* * * It is alleged in the said reply, that the appellant and appellee were partners in a sutler's store, at Nashville,
Tennessee, and were connected with the seventieth regiment of
Indiana volunteers; that the appellee sold his interest in such business to the appellant and one
Pearson, and that they agreed in writing, a copy of which was filed, to pay all the debts of the said firm, and that the payments alleged in said several paragraphs of the answer were payments made upon such partnership debts.
The said contract was as follows:
'NASHVILLE, TENN., January 2d, 1863.
This is to certify that we, William
Pearson and
Augustus F. Shirts, have, this day, bought of Jonathan
Irons, his interest in the sutlery of the seventieth regiment
Indiana volunteers; that we agree to pay all debts, yet unpaid, that have been contracted since William
Irons sold out to Jonathan
Irons.
WILLIAM
Pearson,
AUGUSTUS F. SHIRTS.'
* * *
The contract alleges that
Irons had sold his interest in the sutlery of the seventieth regiment of
Indiana volunteers, and that the purchasers thereof agreed to pay all the debts, yet unpaid, that have been contracted since William
Irons sold out to Jonathan
Irons.
* * *
The instrument made a part of the reply is not very full and satisfactory. It recites that
Irons had that day sold his interest in the sutlery of the seventieth regiment of
Indiana volunteers to
Shirts and
Pearson, and that they agreed to pay all debts yet unpaid that had been contracted since William
Irons sold out to Jonathan
Irons. The instrument does not show what the interest of
Irons was, nor in what it consisted. It may have been the stock in trade; it may have been the horses and wagons employed in the business; it may have been the accounts due him for goods sold, or it may have been all of these things. It would not have varied or contradicted the written instrument to have admitted parol evidence to show what was the real consideration of the promise to pay the debts of the said Jonathan
Irons, contracted subsequent to his purchase from William
Irons.
* * *
The object of the evidence offered and excluded was, to prove that the promise of the appellant to pay all the debts that had been contracted by Jonathan
Irons subsequent to his purchase from William
Irons, and which remained unpaid, was the sale by Jonathan
Irons to the appellant and
Pearson of the accounts due to
Irons for goods sold, and that said accounts were 'insolvent and worthless.'
* * *
It is next assigned for error, that the court erred in excluding from the jury certain questions and answers in the deposition of William W. Irons. It appears of record that the appellant took the deposition of the said
Irons, who resided in
Hendricks county, in this State; that the appellee produced in court the said
Irons, who was examined in chief, cross examined, and re-examined; that the appellee had discharged the said witness, who had returned home and was not present at court, when the appellant offered to read certain portions of his deposition as rebutting evidence.
* * *
In a case like the present, we are inclined to adopt the construction contended for by the appellant. The trial was had in
Hamilton county. The witness resided in
Hendricks county."
Irons v. Woodfill, 32 Ind. 40, 1869 WL 3374 (Ind. Nov Term 1869)
This was an action, commenced February 20th, 1868, by the appellees, as assignees, against the appellants, on a promissory note, executed by the latter to one Samuel Little, on the 4th day of January, 1865, for seven hundred dollars, due one day after date. The note is indorsed as follows:
'Home, December 9th, 1865, interest paid on the within note up to Nov. 9th, 1867, and the same not to be collected within that time, unless agreed upon by both parties. I assign the within note, without recourse. SAMUEL LITTLE.'
The appellants filed an answer, alleging, that at the time of the assignment of the note to the plaintiffs, it was agreed and made an express condition of said assignment, "that said plaintiffs should forbear to collect said note and the amount thereof for two years from the date of said assignment;" that the same was assigned by said Little in part payment for land purchased by him of said Susannah
Woodfill, and pursuant to an agreement made between the plaintiffs, the defendant, and said Little, the plaintiffs accepted said note as the last payment on said land, 'with the express condition on the part of said parties that said note should not become due or payable until the 9th day of November, 1869, at which time the defendants agreed to pay said plaintiffs ten per cent. per annum as interest on said note from said 9th day of November, 1867; that the defendants paid to said Little at that date the interest then due, at the rate of ten per cent. per annum, and the same was assigned to the plaintiffs at the estimated value of eight hundred and forty dollars, two years from date, and so accepted upon the express condition aforesaid; wherefore,' &c.
* * *"
This
Irons is likely related to the Thomas
Irons family at least.
Chicago, I. & L. Ry. Co. v. Irons, 38 Ind.App. 196, 78 N.E. 207 (Ind.App. 1 Div. 1906). Appeal from Circuit
Court,
Clinton County. "Suit by appellee [Thomas
Irons] for the cost of repairing or rebuilding a fence between appellee's property and appellant's right of way." This is a different county and I do not know whether this
Irons is related to the
Hendricks county Irons