Schermerhorn v. Schermerhorn
New York Supreme Court
This was ail action of assumpsit on a promissory note, given by the defendants to the testator, for the sum of $360, bearing date 23d April, 1813, payable in one year. The defendants plead the general issue, and the statute of limitations ; and two of the defendants, Jesup and Hickcox, also gave notice of discharges obtained by them as insolvent debtors, under the two-third act.
Read the full summary
This was ail action of assumpsit on a promissory note, given by the defendants to the testator, for the sum of $360, bearing date 23d April, 1813, payable in one year. The defendants plead the general issue, and the statute of limitations ; and two of the defendants, Jesup and Hickcox, also gave notice of discharges obtained by them as insolvent debtors, under the two-third act. Issue was joined upon the second plea, and the cause was tried at the Albany circuit, in February, 1827, before the Hon. William A. Duer, one of the circuit judges. The note produced at the trial had the signature of…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Woodworth, J.
The plaintiff is entitled to recover, unless it appears that the note was given for a partnership debt of Jesup and Hickcox, and that all the members of the firm of Schermerhorns and Van Alstyne did not consent to become bound. Van Alstyne affixed the signature. There is no evidence that John I. Schermerhom, one of the partners, was consulted, or had any knowledge of the transaction.
The law is well settled, that where one of" two partners subscribes the copartnership name to" a note, as sureties for a third person, without the authority or consent of the…
2Cited by17 opinions
- Supervisors of Chenango v. BirdsallNew York Supreme Court · 1830
- Pack v. . the Mayor, C. of New-YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1850
- Austin v. FullerNew York Supreme Court · 1852
- Swanzey v. ParkerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1865
- Benjamin v. CoventryNew York Supreme Court · 1838
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.