Bonnell v. Chamberlin
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Assumpsit for goods sold to William A. Chamberlin, C. C. Chamberlin and J. L. Root as partners, i On the trial of the case to the jury, the defendants, C. C. Chamberlin and Root, admitted their liability for the goods.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit for goods sold to William A. Chamberlin, C. C. Chamberlin and J. L. Root as partners, i On the trial of the case to the jury, the defendants, C. C. Chamberlin and Root, admitted their liability for the goods. The defendant William A. denied his liability and claimed and offered evidence to prove that at the time of the purchase of the goods he was not associated with the other defendants in business; that he had no part in purchasing them ; that he had sold out his store and all interest in the business to the other defendants, who had formed a new copartnership before such…
1Opinion of the CourtEllsworth, J.
One of the important questions made on this trial is, whether William A. Chamberlin was in partnership with C. C. Chamberlin and J.' L. Root, at the time of the sale of the goods in question by the plaintiffs. To establish the affirmative, and that credit was given to him as a partner, the plaintiffs offered to prove that at the time of the sale they sent a messenger to a certain mercantile agency in the city of New York to learn what was the credit of the said William, which fact was unknown to him. This evidence was objected to, but was received. We think it was improperly received. The…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Ensworth v. DavenportSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1832
- Beach v. CatlinSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1810
3Cited by8 opinions
- Guldager v. RockwellSupreme Court of Colorado · 1890
- Mills v. RiggleSupreme Court of Kansas · 1911
- Taft v. Valley Oil Co., Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1939
- Wipperman v. HardyIndiana Court of Appeals · 1897
- Usher v. WaddinghamSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1892
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.