Legal Opinion

Leavitt v. Peck

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided June 24, 1819PublishedCited by 7 opinions

THIS was an action on a promissory note against Gad Peck and Egbert D. Peck, described as merchants in company, under the firm of Egbert D. Peck. The note was in these words: “ Mew-Haven, October 22nd, 1817. On demand, I promise to pay Mr. Gad Peck, or order, eleven hundred and fifteen dollars and fifty-two cents, value received, with interest. [Signed.] Egbert D. Peck.’’ It was endorsed, “ Gad Peck.” Egbert D. Peck suffered a default ; and Gad Peck pleaded non assumpsit.

Read the full summary

THIS was an action on a promissory note against Gad Peck and Egbert D. Peck, described as merchants in company, under the firm of Egbert D. Peck. The note was in these words: “ Mew-Haven, October 22nd, 1817. On demand, I promise to pay Mr. Gad Peck, or order, eleven hundred and fifteen dollars and fifty-two cents, value received, with interest. [Signed.] Egbert D. Peck.’’ It was endorsed, “ Gad Peck.” Egbert D. Peck suffered a default ; and Gad Peck pleaded non assumpsit. The cause was tried on this issue, at .New-Haven, January term 1819, before Trumbull, Hosmer and Peters, Js. The…

1Opinion of the Court

Hosmeu, Ch. J.

It is a well established principle, that the contract of a partner is obligatory on his co-partner, by virtue of an implied authority, which may be rebutted, by a refusal to be bound by his acts. By legal consequence, the partner whose authority is thus declined, cannot bind the co-partnership, in favour of those, who have knowledge of this fact. Lord Galway v. Matthew & Smithson, 1 Campb. 403. S. C. 10 East 264. Willis v. Dyson, 1 Stark. 164. Nothing can be more reasonable than that a person may protect himself, in this manner, against the fraud and misconduct of his associate.…

2Cited by7 opinions

  1. Bank of Bellbuckle v. MasonTennessee Supreme Court · 1917
  2. Ellis v. AllenSupreme Court of Alabama · 1886
  3. Noyes v. New Haven, New London & Stonington RailroadSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1861
  4. Feigley v. SponebergerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1843
  5. Doerr, Admr. v. Hibben, Hollweg Co.Indiana Court of Appeals · 1926

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API