Brownlee v. Allen
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from St. Louis Law Commissioner’s Court. This was an action for goods sold and delivered, brought against Hawley & Allen, as partners in the management of the Cheltenham Springs. Hawley did not answer, and a judgment by default was rendered against him. Allen answered, denying any partnership with Hawley, by whom the goods were purchased.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis Law Commissioner’s Court. This was an action for goods sold and delivered, brought against Hawley & Allen, as partners in the management of the Cheltenham Springs. Hawley did not answer, and a judgment by default was rendered against him. Allen answered, denying any partnership with Hawley, by whom the goods were purchased. The cause was submitted on an agreed statement of facts, from which it appeared that on the 12th of May, 1852, Allen & Hawley entered into' an agreement in writing, by which Allen leased to Hawley, for the term of eight years, the Sulphur Spring…
1Opinion of the Court
Ryland, Judge,
delivered tie opinion of the court.
The only matter to which our attention has been called, is in relation to the partnership of Hawley & Allen. From the facts agreed, the court below considered them as partners in the Cheltenham Springs, and declared the law to be in favor of the plaintiffs. In this declaration of the law, this court concurs with the court below. The facts agreed to clearly show that there was a partnership existing between these defendants in this Cheltenham Springs adventure, and such being the case, Allen is bound, as such partner, for the goods purchased by…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Hynes v. EckerMissouri Court of Appeals · 1889