Legal Opinion

Woodworth v. Downer

Supreme Court of Vermont

Decided March 15, 1841PublishedCited by 4 opinions

Assumpsit, in two counts. The first count was as follows ; viz.— ‘ For that the said defendants, at said Randolph, on the c 16th day of January, 1839, having then and for a long c time previously, been partners in trade, under -the firm of e Jonah Washburn &- Company, and being then indebted to ‘ the plaintiff in the sum of two hundred and twenty-one ‘ dollars and forty-six cents, on settlement of various deal- ‘ ings between the plaintiff and defendants, did, by their £…

Read the full summary

Assumpsit, in two counts. The first count was as follows ; viz.— ‘ For that the said defendants, at said Randolph, on the c 16th day of January, 1839, having then and for a long c time previously, been partners in trade, under -the firm of e Jonah Washburn &- Company, and being then indebted to ‘ the plaintiff in the sum of two hundred and twenty-one ‘ dollars and forty-six cents, on settlement of various deal- ‘ ings between the plaintiff and defendants, did, by their £ note in writing of that date, subscribed in and with the c name of the said firm, and delivered to the plaintiff, by Jo- ‘…

1Opinion of the Court

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Redfield, J.

It is undoubtedly true,that even after a dissolution of a partnership, the acts and admissions of one of the partners, in regard to the partnership liabilities, are, to some extent, binding upon all the partners. Such admissions of one partner are, undoubtedly, evidence to go to the jury in a joint action against all the partners. It is upon this ground, that such admissions have been considered sufficient to take a case out of the operation of the statute of limitations. Joslyn v. Smith, ante, 353.

*525But it has always been considered, that…

2Cited by4 opinions

  1. Reirden v. Stephenson, Wright & ValleySupreme Court of Vermont · 1914
  2. Merrick v. Merchants National BankLucas County Court of Common Pleas · 1901
  3. Roberts v. W. H. Hughes Co.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1912
  4. Waters v. HarrisThe Superior Court of New York City · 1891

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API