Lane v. Arnold
New York Court of Common Pleas
Appeal from a judgment of the General Term of the Marine Court of the City of New York, affirming a j udgment of that court entered upon trial by the court without a jury. The action was brought to recover the price of goods sold and delivered by the plaintiffs to the defendants.
Read the full summary
Appeal from a judgment of the General Term of the Marine Court of the City of New York, affirming a j udgment of that court entered upon trial by the court without a jury. The action was brought to recover the price of goods sold and delivered by the plaintiffs to the defendants. At the trial the cause was submitted upon the following agreed statement of facts admitted by the parties to be true: “ That the goods for which this suit is brought were sold and delivered to the defendants by a firm doing business under the firm name of ‘ Mayor, Lane & Co.’ composed of the plaintiffs in the manner…
1Opinion of the CourtVan Hoesen, J.
The act of 1833 provides that “no person shall hereafter transact business in the name of a partner not interested in his firm.” The question is whether the plaintiffs, by doing business in the name of a person not interested in their firm, have lost the right to recover the value of the goods which they sold to the defendants. We are first to inquire who are interested in the firm that did business under the name of Mayor, Lane & Co. It is conceded that the plaintiffs Lane and Harder were so interested. Pierre A. Mayor in his lifetime was also interested. Harder was the partner represented…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Beste v. BurgerNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1885
- Arnstaedt v. BlumenfeldNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1885
- Barron v. YostNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1891
- Stewart v. RobinsonNew York Supreme Court · 1888
- Woarms v. BauerNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1890