Slocum v. Hooker & Catlin
New York Supreme Court
This action was brought against the defendants, as partners, to recover damages for non-performance of a special contract for carrying wheat on the canal. The defendants, among other things, alledged that Richard H. Pattison, at the time of making the contract, was a copartner with them, and was and still is jointly interested with them in the contract. The plaintiffs replied that Pattison was an infant, to which the defendants demurred.
Read the full summary
This action was brought against the defendants, as partners, to recover damages for non-performance of a special contract for carrying wheat on the canal. The defendants, among other things, alledged that Richard H. Pattison, at the time of making the contract, was a copartner with them, and was and still is jointly interested with them in the contract. The plaintiffs replied that Pattison was an infant, to which the defendants demurred. The issue of law thus joined was tried before Justice Harris at special term, who gave judgment in favor of the plaintiffs,(a) and the defendants appealed to…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, Parker, P. J.
The pleadings admit that Pattison, an infant, was a copartner with the two defendants, and a party to the contract; and the question presented for de*537termination is, whether the plaintiffs are at liberty to claim a recovery against the two adult members of the firm alone, without making the partner under age a party to the action. I think this depends entirely on another question, viz. whether the contract with Pattison was void or was only voidable. Bingham, (in his treatise on infancy, page 8,) says, “ a void act never is, nor never can be binding, either on the…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Robertson v. SmithNew York Supreme Court · 1821
- Whitney v. DutchMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1817
- Hartness v. ThompsonNew York Supreme Court · 1809
- Goodsell v. MyersNew York Supreme Court · 1830
- Mason & Hale v. Denison & DenisonCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1835
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Paulson v. McMillanWashington Supreme Court · 1941
- Stafford v. RoofCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1827
- Simkins Simkins v. Searcy, GuardianCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1895
- In re the Estate of ZalewskiNew York Surrogate's Court · 1941
- In re the Estate of DonnellyNew York Surrogate's Court · 1939
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.