Walker v. Bailey
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
On motion.' Assumpsit for money had and received. The plaintiff in 1868, and previously, was associated with Charles E. Bailey, the intestate, in purchasing and selling hay, Bailey assisting in the purchases in Maine, and «the plaintiff either alone or as a member of the firm of himself and company, attending to the sales in Massachusetts, and sharing the profits with Bailey.
Read the full summary
On motion.' Assumpsit for money had and received. The plaintiff in 1868, and previously, was associated with Charles E. Bailey, the intestate, in purchasing and selling hay, Bailey assisting in the purchases in Maine, and «the plaintiff either alone or as a member of the firm of himself and company, attending to the sales in Massachusetts, and sharing the profits with Bailey. In 1868, one Kidder, of Norridgewoek, received from Bailey $200 to aid him in finishing his haying, for which he gave to Bailey his note, and a mortgage on the 1867 crop of hay then pressed and lying in his barn for…
1Opinion of the CourtBarrows, J.
Two grounds were taken in defense at the trial: I. That if the plaintiff had any interest in the money loaned to Kidder, it was only that of a partner in the firm of E. H. Walker & Co., and so the suit in his individual name was not maintainable: II. That, at all events, the matter had entered into the adjustment between E. H. Walker & Co. and the defendants’ intestate, made January 13, 1869.
The jury were duly instructed that if there was a partnership, and the funds were advanced by the firm, the action was not maintainable. Their attention was carefully called to the evidence, tending to…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Turon v. J. & L. CONSTRUCTION CO.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1952
- Victor-American Fuel Co. v. PeccarichCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1913
- Demarest v. VandenbergNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1884
- T. W. Lind Co. v. Nu Fastner Co.Superior Court of Rhode Island · 1919