Gilbert v. Whidden
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
Assumpsit on a promissory note, dated Sept. 7, 1837, payable in twelve mouths to “ T. Gilbert & Co.” or order, and signed by the defendant. The suit was in the names of Timothy Gilbert and Henry Safford, as plaintiffs, transacting business in the partnership name of T. Gilbert & Co.; and to prove that the plaintiffs composed that firm, they introduced the deposition of B. Williams, taken in 1339. He stated in his deposition.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit on a promissory note, dated Sept. 7, 1837, payable in twelve mouths to “ T. Gilbert & Co.” or order, and signed by the defendant. The suit was in the names of Timothy Gilbert and Henry Safford, as plaintiffs, transacting business in the partnership name of T. Gilbert & Co.; and to prove that the plaintiffs composed that firm, they introduced the deposition of B. Williams, taken in 1339. He stated in his deposition. “ I am acquainted with the persons composing, the firm of T. Gilbert & Co. I have been at their place of business every time I have been in Boston for the last four…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was by
Weston C. J.
When actions are brought by partners, their partnership may be proved by persons who have done business with them as partners. Gow on Part. 140 ; Collyer on Part. 406. The testimony of the deponent, Williams, sufficiently proved the connection of the plaintiffs as partners, aside from their declarations. These were not necessary to establish the fact as it was otherwise known to the deponent, who had been in the habit of doing business with them. And if he found them acting as partners before and after the date of the note, it was proper evidence to…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Barnett Bank v. ChiatovichNevada Supreme Court · 1925