Deering v. Flanders
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Assumpsit, for goods sold. The action was brought by DeSring, Milliken & Co. against Charles Fletcher and Mrs. Laurana Flanders, partners as Charles Fletcher & Co. Fletcher was defaulted, and the suit was contested by Mrs. Flanders. The goods were sold July 9, 1867. The defendant’s firm was formed in April, 1867, and dissolved in May, 1867, Fletcher then buying the interest of Mrs. Flanders, and continuing in the same business at the same place.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit, for goods sold. The action was brought by DeSring, Milliken & Co. against Charles Fletcher and Mrs. Laurana Flanders, partners as Charles Fletcher & Co. Fletcher was defaulted, and the suit was contested by Mrs. Flanders. The goods were sold July 9, 1867. The defendant’s firm was formed in April, 1867, and dissolved in May, 1867, Fletcher then buying the interest of Mrs. Flanders, and continuing in the same business at the same place. The firm of Deering, Milliken & Co. consisted of six persons until July 1, 1867, when Locke, one of the partners, withdrew, and the others continued…
1Opinion of the CourtFoster, J.
The principal question is whether, under all the circumstances, Mrs. Flanders, in order to protect herself from liability for the price of the goods in question, was required to notify the plaintiffs of her retirement from the firm with which she had been connected.
In the firm of C. Fletcher & Co., Mrs. Flanders was not a nominal, a dormant nor a secret partner, but she was an ostensible partner. Col Iyer on Partnership §4. ‘ T -understand,” (said Mr. Justice Story,) “the common meaning of secret partnership to be a partnership where the existence of certain persons as partners is not avoAved…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Benton v. Chamberlain, Strong & Co.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1851