Bucknam v. Barnum
Supreme Court of Connecticut
This was an action brought by Jesse Bucknam, as indor-see of a promissory note, against Daniel Barnum jr., Alan-son Taylor and Frederick W. Smith, as makers, alleged to be partners under the name of D. Barnum & Co. The note was made in the city of New-York; the partnership name of the defendants was subscribed thereto ; it was for the sum of 477 dollars, dated the 23rd of January, 1839, and was payable to A. W. Sanger, or order, six months after date.
Read the full summary
This was an action brought by Jesse Bucknam, as indor-see of a promissory note, against Daniel Barnum jr., Alan-son Taylor and Frederick W. Smith, as makers, alleged to be partners under the name of D. Barnum & Co. The note was made in the city of New-York; the partnership name of the defendants was subscribed thereto ; it was for the sum of 477 dollars, dated the 23rd of January, 1839, and was payable to A. W. Sanger, or order, six months after date. The defendant, Smith, was defaulted. The other defendants pleaded the general issue ; on which the cause was tried, at Danbury, September term,…
1Opinion of the Court
Williams, Ch. J.
The agreement in question purports to be made, not by D. Barnum & Co., or Barnum and Taylor, *72with Smith, but by Barnum, Taylor and Smith with each - other. It was for an adventure, in which they were to be mutually interested. The purchases here were to be made by Barnum and Taylor; remittances in Texas to be procured by Smith ; and each was to have a certain portion of the nett profits of the adventure. That these profits were not equal, can make no difference in the construction of this agreement. Smith is defaulted ; but Barnum and Taylor say he was not a partner, and so…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Everitt v. ChapmanSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1827
3Cited by5 opinions
- Miles v. PerryConnecticut Appellate Court · 1987
- Brigham v. DanaSupreme Court of Vermont · 1856
- Roach v. HalvorsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1914
- Greenhouse v. ZempskySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1966
- Cummings v. D'oyen, No. Cv94 31 83 10 S (May 3, 1996)Connecticut Superior Court · 1996