Willis v. . Hill
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Assumpsit for money lent, and for money paid, laid out and expended by the plaintiffs, for the use of the defendant. Plea, non assumpsit.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit for money lent, and for money paid, laid out and expended by the plaintiffs, for the use of the defendant. Plea, non assumpsit. On the trial before Dicic, Judge, at Caswell, on the last Circuit, the case was, that the defendant, prior to the month of October, 1833, was in partnership with one .Hobson, in the purchase of slaves : that a dissolution took place in that month; and that in a few days after the dissolution the plaintiffs lent Hobson a sum of money, for which they took the following acknowledgment: “Received of Henry Willis & Co. four hundred dollars, to purchase negroes,…
1Opinion of the Court
Ruffin, Chief Justice.
Although the use by a firm of money, borrowed by one of the partners, may be evidence that it was borrowed for the partnership, and upon its credit, yet it may be doubted whether such an inference is admissible, when the borrowing partner gives his own separate security and obligation for the amount. It is distinguishable from the case of Horton v. Child, 4 Dev. 460, because there a joint debt, both in law and in- fact, was constituted by the sale of the goods to the partnership, and the obligation thereon of the one partner, was not me'rge(^ in t'le bond subsequently…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Bell v. MorrisonSupreme Court of the United States · 1828
- Walden v. SherburneNew York Supreme Court · 1818
- Hackley v. PatrickNew York Supreme Court · 1808
3Cited by8 opinions
- Sexton v. . Elizabeth CitySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1915
- Brewer v. ElksSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1963
- Southern Distributing Co. v. CarrawaySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1925
- Irvin v. . HarrisSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1921
- Gohlman, Lester Co. v. WhittleCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1923
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.