John Roth & Co. v. Colvin, Allen & Co.
Supreme Court of Vermont
Assumpsit. The action was prosecuted only against Isaac Nye, one of the defendants, a non est return having been made as to tli.e others, Colvin and Allen.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit. The action was prosecuted only against Isaac Nye, one of the defendants, a non est return having been made as to tli.e others, Colvin and Allen. The case was referred and the referee made the following report: “ The plaintiffs claim to recover upon three promissory notes, one for on.e thousand dollars, dated Port Kent, May 1st, 1854, payable four moths after its date ; one for one thousand dollars, dated Port Kent, May 5th, 1854, payable three months from its date; and one for five hundred dollars, dated Port Kent, May 25th, 1854, payable three months from its date, all made…
1Opinion of the CourtPoland, J.
I. The first ground of defence which the defendant Nye sets up to the three notes is, that the members of the firm of Colvin, Allen & Company had no authority to bind the firm by signing the partnership name to negotiable promissory *132notes, even in the legitimate business of the firm, or for money obtained to be used in their business ; that no such poWer was expressly conferred upon the several partners, and that it was not necessary in order to carry on the business of the firm, and therefore could not be inferred or implied. Upon this part of the case the court are not fully agreed, and the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Pringle v. PhillipsThe Superior Court of New York City · 1851
- Sandford v. NortonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1842
3Cited by8 opinions
- Howard National Bank v. WilsonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1923
- Limerick National Bank v. AdamsSupreme Court of Vermont · 1897
- Pierson v. HuntingtonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1909
- Van Dyke v. Grand Trunk Railway Co.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1911
- Briggs v. HilesWisconsin Supreme Court · 1894
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.