President of Manhattan Co. v. Ledyard & Ledyard
New York Supreme Court
' THIS case was submitted without argument. Radcliff justice, now delivered the opinion of the court. , This is an a£tion by the plaintiffs, as indorsees of a promissory note made by Brown, Talbot, and Co. to the defendants for 488 dolls. "17 cts. and indorsed by them to the plaintiffs.
Read the full summary
' THIS case was submitted without argument. Radcliff justice, now delivered the opinion of the court. , This is an a£tion by the plaintiffs, as indorsees of a promissory note made by Brown, Talbot, and Co. to the defendants for 488 dolls. "17 cts. and indorsed by them to the plaintiffs. The declaration avers, that James Brown, William Talbot, and John Goodere, aSting under the firm of Brown, Talbot, and Co.-made the note in question, the proper name and firm of Brown, Talbot, and Co. being thereunto subscribed; and that the defendants being partners, under the firm of Austin Ledyard, and Co.…
1Opinion of the Court
We have no doubt that the averments were sufficiently supported by this evidence. It was not necessary to set forth, that one of the partners of each of the "firms, made and indorsed the note in the name or style of the respective partnerships. Although made and indorsed by one of the partners of each house, the legal effect was the same, and it is in all cases sufficient to set forth a writing according to its legal effect or operation. We are therefore of opinion, that the plaintiffs are entitled to judgment.
2Cited by2 opinions
- Mack v. SpencerNew York Supreme Court · 1830
- Wardell v. PinneyNew York Supreme Court · 1828