Elkinton v. Booth
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract, by persons doing business in Philadelphia in the State of Pennsylvania, against Eliza F. Booth and Margaret Kidd, copartners, doing business under the firm name of the Spring Brook Mills Company, on an account annexed, for goods sold and delivered in 1883. Writ dated May 17, 1884. Answer, a general denial.
Read the full summary
Contract, by persons doing business in Philadelphia in the State of Pennsylvania, against Eliza F. Booth and Margaret Kidd, copartners, doing business under the firm name of the Spring Brook Mills Company, on an account annexed, for goods sold and delivered in 1883. Writ dated May 17, 1884. Answer, a general denial. Trial, in the Superior Court, before Bacon, J., who allowed a bill of exceptions, in substance as follows: There was evidence tending to show that the business of manufacturing woollen goods had been carried on by the defendants and other persons, as stated below, at Millville, in…
1Opinion of the CourtC. Allen, J.
The defendants asked the court to rule that, if the plaintiffs never knew that the defendants were the responsible parties in the Spring Brook Mills Company, and if that company did not owe them anything at the time the defendants ceased to do business, then the plaintiffs were not entitled to actual notice of the dissolution of the firm consisting of the defendants. This request was properly refused. The two particulars mentioned, taken by themselves alone, were not sufficient and decisive to exonerate the defendants from the duty of giving notice to the plaintiffs.
It was not necessary that…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Rich v. CrandallMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1886
3Cited by4 opinions
- Elmira Iron & Steel Rolling Mill Co. v. HarrisNew York Court of Appeals · 1891
- Smith & Cheney Co. v. SchmidtMichigan Supreme Court · 1905
- Vietor v. SpaldingMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1909
- Warner v. ModanoMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1960