Drake v. Elwyn
New York Supreme Court
THIS case was submitted without argument; tbe fails and points are so well, and closely stated in tbe decision, that it would be tautology to do more than give the opinion of the court, which was delivered by Kent, Justice.
Read the full summary
THIS case was submitted without argument; tbe fails and points are so well, and closely stated in tbe decision, that it would be tautology to do more than give the opinion of the court, which was delivered by Kent, Justice. This is a suit against the defendants as co-partners ift trade, under the firm of Elwyn and Co. on a note to the plantiffs, subscribed by the said Elwyn, by the name of jEhuyn & Co. and dated the 11th December, 1800. On the trial hi's signature to the note was proved, and it was admitted that Samuel Wittaker was a partner in the business with him, and the question that…
1Opinion of the Court
I think the evidence is sufficient to prove that the three defendants were in co-partnership as traders at the time the note was given. At any rate, it was sufficient to let the point go to the jury, and to prevent a nonsuit. The only difficulty is, concerning the want of proof that Elwyn and Co. was the co-partnership name". But as such a signature imported a co-partnership, and a co-partnership did exist at the time between Elwyn and the other defendants, I think it is to be presumed that such was the name of the firm, and that it was sufficient to cast upon the defendants the burthen of…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Livingston v. RooseveltNew York Supreme Court · 1809
- Lyman v. LymanU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Vermont · 1829