Ross v. Executors of Everett
Supreme Court of Georgia
Assumpsit, in Houston Superior.Court. Tried before Judge Powers, April Term, 1852. To the July Term, 1847, of Houston Inferior Court, John B. Ross commenced his action against James A. Everett, and one William H. Lee, as partners, on a promissory note for ‡206 67. Everett alone was served, “ non est inventus” being returned as to Lee. The defendant pleaded the general issue, and also that no partnership existed between himself and Lee.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit, in Houston Superior.Court. Tried before Judge Powers, April Term, 1852. To the July Term, 1847, of Houston Inferior Court, John B. Ross commenced his action against James A. Everett, and one William H. Lee, as partners, on a promissory note for ‡206 67. Everett alone was served, “ non est inventus” being returned as to Lee. The defendant pleaded the general issue, and also that no partnership existed between himself and Lee. Everett died in 1848, and at the October Term, 1849, of Houston Superior Court, (the cause having been transferred to the Appeal,) the executors of Everett…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
Nisset, J.
delivering the opinion.
[1.] There is no doubt whatever, about the Common Law rule, that the representatives of a deceased partner cannot be sued for a partnership debt. This rule is not repealed by our Act of 1818. 1 Kelly, 489. Nor is it repealed, except sub modo, by the Act of 1820, as we shall see.
[2.] The case now being considered, is just such a case as our Act of 1820 contemplates, and is controlled by that Act. The title of the Act of 1820, is “An Act to regulate the mode of prosecuting actions against contractors and copartners in certain cases.” The preamble…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Anderson v. Pollard & Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1878
- Birdseye v. UnderhillSupreme Court of Georgia · 1888
- Lively v. WardCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1919