Hinchman v. Barns
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Wayne Circuit. This was an action of assumpsit, brought by Theodore H. Hinchman, John M. Hinchman and Ford D. O. Hinchman against John A. Barns and Henry A. Bury. Tbe latter was not served with process. Tbe plaintiffs declared against tbe two defendants as partners. Barns defended on tbe ground "that be was a special, and not a general, partner of Bury.
Read the full summary
Error to Wayne Circuit. This was an action of assumpsit, brought by Theodore H. Hinchman, John M. Hinchman and Ford D. O. Hinchman against John A. Barns and Henry A. Bury. Tbe latter was not served with process. Tbe plaintiffs declared against tbe two defendants as partners. Barns defended on tbe ground "that be was a special, and not a general, partner of Bury. The plaintiffs, on tbe contrary, affirming that by a neglect to publish notice of the limited partnership, as required by the statute, in the same Senatorial District where the business was to be carried on, the partnership was in…
1Opinion of the CourtCooley, J.
The principal question in this case concerns the meaning of the statute which requires a notice of special partnership to be published in two newspapers in the Senatorial District within which the business is to be carried on, and makes the special partner liable as a general partner, if there shall be any failure to make the requisite publication.
The business in this case was to be carried on in the First ward of the city of Detroit, and a notice thereof in due form was published in two daily newspapers of that city. The offices of those papers, however, were in the Second ward of the city,…
2Cited by7 opinions
- In Re McDonaldCalifornia Supreme Court · 1921
- Stanwood v. CarsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915
- Pratt v. TinkcomSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1874
- Perkins v. KellerMichigan Supreme Court · 1880
- Hunterdon County Democrat, Inc. v. Recorder Publishing Co.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1971
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.