Hastings v. Hopkinson
Supreme Court of Vermont
Assumpsit for goods and money with a specification. Plea, tlie general issue ; trial by jury, March Term, 1855, — Pierpoint, J., presiding. No defense was made by Paul, and a verdict was rendered against him for the amount of the plaintiffs’ claim and costs. Hopkinson defended.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit for goods and money with a specification. Plea, tlie general issue ; trial by jury, March Term, 1855, — Pierpoint, J., presiding. No defense was made by Paul, and a verdict was rendered against him for the amount of the plaintiffs’ claim and costs. Hopkinson defended. The plaintiffs claimed to recover against the defendants as partners with one S. B. Rockwell, and as having, as such partners, conducted the mercantile business under the firm and style of George H. Paul, and made the purchases and received the cash charged in the plaintiffs’ specification,.at the city of New York. In…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Isham, J.
Upon the facts stated in this case two questions have been urged upon our consideration. In the first place, is the defendant Hopkinson liable, as partner, for the plaintiffs’ account ? and, in the second place, was the deposition of Bockwell, taken by the defendant Hopkinson, properly received in evidence ?
It is obvious that Hopkinson is not liable in this action, in consequence of his name and credit having been held out to the world as a partner. To. render a person responsible on that ground, a positive consent, or at least a knowledge by…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Cutler v. Estate of ThomasSupreme Court of Vermont · 1852
3Cited by6 opinions
- King v. . SarriaNew York Court of Appeals · 1877
- C. E. Johnson & Co. v. MarshSupreme Court of Vermont · 1940
- Chapman, Lord, Wright & Co. v. Devereux & NoyesSupreme Court of Vermont · 1860
- Sladen, Fakes & Co. v. LanceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1909
- Barwick v. AldermanSupreme Court of Florida · 1903
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.