Jones v. Booth
Supreme Court of Vermont
This was an action of assumpsit, on a promissory note, signed by one Turner Hills, and Austin, Booth & Co., and payable to the plaintiff. It was admitted by the plaintifl, that the name of Austin, Booth & Co. was subscribed to said note by Cyrus Austin, the acting partner, as surety for Turner Hills.
Read the full summary
This was an action of assumpsit, on a promissory note, signed by one Turner Hills, and Austin, Booth & Co., and payable to the plaintiff. It was admitted by the plaintifl, that the name of Austin, Booth & Co. was subscribed to said note by Cyrus Austin, the acting partner, as surety for Turner Hills. The defendant then offered parol evidence, to prove that the partnership of Austin, Booth & Co. was limited to the sale of goods and merchandize ; and, that Booth, the defendant in this case, resided in Colerain, in the commonwealth of Massachusetts, and came to Bennington, where the business of…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Phelps, J.
With the weight of the evidence in this case we have no concern. The only question for our consideration is, whether the evidence relied on by the plaintiff had a legitimate tendency to sustain the issue on his part. If so, it should have gone to the jury to be weighed by them, and if not, the court below were right in passing upon it themselves. -
The plaintiff admits that the mere relation of partners did not, of itself, authorize Austin to bind the defendant, by this note. But he insists that one partner may authorize his fellow to bind him…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Whitcher v. Town of PeachamSupreme Court of Vermont · 1879
- Commercial Bank of Buffalo v. . WarrenNew York Court of Appeals · 1857
- Commercial Bank of Buffalo v. WarrenNew York Court of Appeals · 1857
- Fairbanks v. NelsonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1884
- Ilfeld v. StoverNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1887