Allen v. Cheever
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Assumpsit, for goods sold and delivered. Facts found by a referee. Prior to February 26,1880, the defendants were in trade in Nashua, and were largely indebted to parties in Nashua, besides to several mercantile houses in Boston, among the latter being the plaintiffs. The indebtedness of the defendants was largely in excess of their assets. Their goods had been attached by their Nashua creditors.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit, for goods sold and delivered. Facts found by a referee. Prior to February 26,1880, the defendants were in trade in Nashua, and were largely indebted to parties in Nashua, besides to several mercantile houses in Boston, among the latter being the plaintiffs. The indebtedness of the defendants was largely in excess of their assets. Their goods had been attached by their Nashua creditors. Under these circumstances, all the Boston creditors, including the plaintiffs, executed and delivered to the defendants an agreement, under seal, in the words following:— “We the undersigned,…
1Opinion of the Court
Blodchütt, J.
Although it is a general rule that a partner cannot affix the seals of his copartners without their express authority, yet there is a well recognized exception to its operation in the ease of a release to a joint debtor of a partnership claim, which may be executed by one partner without special authority, and will be binding upon his firm. Morse v. Bellows, 7 N. H. 549, 567; Bar. Bart. (3d ed.) 198, and authorities cited. Shepard, therefore, had authority to bind the plaintiffs by the mutual agreement of compromise entered into by the Boston creditors with the defendants, the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Perkins v. LockwoodMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1868
- Miller v. MackenzieCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1876
3Cited by2 opinions
- Gage v. DecourceySupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1896
- Felker v. HazeltonSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1895