Ricker v. Horn
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
On report, on motion for new trial. Assumpsit, to recover fifty dollars for board of workmen in mill, operated by the defendants, George W. Horn, Noah Gould and Joseph D. Sawyer. Gould and Sawyer submitted to a default before the trial. The plaintiff was unable to attend court at the time of the trial on account of her sickness. The defendant, Horn, defended on the ground that he had withdrawn from the defendant firm before the bill in suit was contracted.
Read the full summary
On report, on motion for new trial. Assumpsit, to recover fifty dollars for board of workmen in mill, operated by the defendants, George W. Horn, Noah Gould and Joseph D. Sawyer. Gould and Sawyer submitted to a default before the trial. The plaintiff was unable to attend court at the time of the trial on account of her sickness. The defendant, Horn, defended on the ground that he had withdrawn from the defendant firm before the bill in suit was contracted. The verdict was for the defendant. At the trial the defendant, Horn, testified that prior to the date of the plaintiff’s account in suit,…
1Opinion of the CourtDANNorth, J.
The defence in this case, is that the contesting defendant Horn had withdrawn from the firm before the plaintiff’s claim had accrued and that the plaintiff had seasonable notice of that fact.
It is conceded that, during previous similar dealings between the plaintiff and the defendant firm, Horn was a member of it, and the evidence clearly shows, that the credit for the board now in suit was given to the three members though largely to Horn, and that while the debt was accruing the conduct of Horn in relation to the partnership business was suchas abundantly to justify such credit, unless the…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Miller v. LayneSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1901