Burley & Harris v. Harris
Superior Court of New Hampshire
This was assumpsit on an account annexed to the writ. The cause was tried on the general issue, and a brief statement was filed, alleging the causes of defence disclosed in this case. [t was admitted that Harris, the defendant, was a partner in the firm of Burley & Harris, in whose name the suit was brought.
Read the full summary
This was assumpsit on an account annexed to the writ. The cause was tried on the general issue, and a brief statement was filed, alleging the causes of defence disclosed in this case. [t was admitted that Harris, the defendant, was a partner in the firm of Burley & Harris, in whose name the suit was brought. The defendant had received goods belonging to the firm to the amount of $4.95 84, for which he was liable to account to the firm : but it was not admitted or proved that the defendant, on a full adjustment of the partnership affairs, would be found indebted to the firm. The parties…
1Opinion of the CourtUp ham, J.
The authorities are very clear, that an individual cannot stand in the relation of plaintiff and defendant in the same suit. A judgment in such case would avail nothing, as the defendant would have the same right to discharge an execution founded on it as the plaintiff.
The question has arisen in numerous instances where an individual has been a member of different firms, in which one firm held claims against the other, and attempted to enforce them at law. Judge Story, in his treatise on Equity, says that no suit can be maintained at law in regard to any actions or debts between two firms,…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Murray v. Bogert & KneelandNew York Supreme Court · 1817
3Cited by4 opinions
- Ladd v. BakerSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1852
- Smith v. Manchester Management Corp.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1977
- Burnham v. HopkinsonSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1845
- Heywood v. WingateSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1843