Mattison v. Farnham
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Action on two promissory notes, one for $8,000, bearing date September 10, 1887, and one for $5,000, bearing date December 10,1887, both payable to plaintiff, and signed “Farnham & Lovejoy,” the name of a firm composed of defendant Farnham and one James A. Love-joy, and dissolved by the latter’s death on January 29, 1886. The defendants Young, Howe, and Merriman are the executors of Love-joy’s will, and plaintiff seeks to charge them personally, as partners ■with Farnham,…
Read the full summary
Action on two promissory notes, one for $8,000, bearing date September 10, 1887, and one for $5,000, bearing date December 10,1887, both payable to plaintiff, and signed “Farnham & Lovejoy,” the name of a firm composed of defendant Farnham and one James A. Love-joy, and dissolved by the latter’s death on January 29, 1886. The defendants Young, Howe, and Merriman are the executors of Love-joy’s will, and plaintiff seeks to charge them personally, as partners ■with Farnham, upon the facts stated in the opinion. At the trial, in the district court for Hennepin county, before Rea, J., the court…
1Opinion of the CourtMitchell, J.
Conceding, for the sake of argument, that there was evidence tending to prove that the executors of James A. Lovejoy, the deceased member of the partnership of “Farnham & Lovejoy,” had so acted with reference to the continuance of the partnership business that they became partners therein with S. W. Farnham, the surviving member of the firm; and conceding the law to be that they thereby incurred the personal and unlimited liability of partners for all debts contracted after the death of their testator, still plaintiff failed to make out a cause of action against them* and the action was…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Andrews v. StinsonIllinois Supreme Court · 1912
- Stearns v. Inhabitants of BrooklineMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1914
- Brown v. MorrillSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1891