Ketcham v. Clark
New York Supreme Court
THIS cause came before the court, on a writ of error, insimul computassent. , , _ fendant m error, m the court below, for goods sold and delivered, money paid, &c. money lent, &c.; and on an The defendant pleaded non assumpsit, with notice of ‘The plaintiffs proved their demand for goods sold and delivered, to the, amount of 2.56 dollars and 81 cents.
Read the full summary
THIS cause came before the court, on a writ of error, insimul computassent. , , _ fendant m error, m the court below, for goods sold and delivered, money paid, &c. money lent, &c.; and on an The defendant pleaded non assumpsit, with notice of ‘The plaintiffs proved their demand for goods sold and delivered, to the, amount of 2.56 dollars and 81 cents. The defendant offered in evidence, by way of set-off, a draft on Israel Ketcham and Co. signed by Kellog MolIan, dated 27th June, 1807, in favour of the defendant, for 190 dollars and 41 cents, on which there was a written acceptance, as follows…
1Opinion of the CourtVan Ness, J.
The question is, whether Black had not authority to, bind his copartner, when he accepted the order of the 30th of June. That acceptance was binding, if Clark, who took it, was not chargeable with notice, either express or constructive, of the dissolution of the partnership. The order was drawn upon the firm by a house which had formerly sold goqds to the firm, and it was. *147drawn in favour of a person who had also previously dealt with it. By the terms of the articles of copartnership, the partnership had ceased on the 1st of May preceding; but no notice of this dissolution appears to. have…
2Cited by23 opinions
- Lucas v. Bank of DarienSupreme Court of Alabama · 1830
- Solomon v. KirkwoodMichigan Supreme Court · 1884
- Van Eps v. DillayeNew York Supreme Court · 1849
- Graves v. MerryNew York Supreme Court · 1827
- Lovejoy v. SpaffordSupreme Court of the United States · 1876
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.