Raymond v. Came
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
In Equity. This is the same proceeding as in Raymond v. Putnam, 44 N. H. 160. The original bill was only against Putnam and Chase, and it was settled that it must be dismissed, as it then stood, for want of proper parties, and also, because Eaymond had no claim upon Putnam & Chase, as appeared in the former opinion. Since that time the plaintiffs bill has been amended by adding Obed Chase and Came, and Clime & Palmer, as defendants, upon whom proper service has been made.
Read the full summary
In Equity. This is the same proceeding as in Raymond v. Putnam, 44 N. H. 160. The original bill was only against Putnam and Chase, and it was settled that it must be dismissed, as it then stood, for want of proper parties, and also, because Eaymond had no claim upon Putnam & Chase, as appeared in the former opinion. Since that time the plaintiffs bill has been amended by adding Obed Chase and Came, and Clime & Palmer, as defendants, upon whom proper service has been made. The bill has also been amended by striking out all the original bill after the- articles of cojiartnership, and inserting…
1Opinion of the CourtSargent, J.
We are satisfied, upon the pleadings and proofs, that Palmer parted with his interest in the firm in the spring of 1862, and that it was arranged between him and Came that Came should have his whole rights, be entitled to all the benefits, and be responsible for all the liabilities of the firm of Came and Palmer, so far as it was connected with the Milford Plow Company, and that thenceforth Came was to own and represent, and be responsible for, the original share of Came & Palmer, and that this was done with the knowledge and consent of the other partners in the Milford Plow Company. The said…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Scott v. PinkertonNew York Court of Chancery · 1837
3Cited by1 opinion
- Hamilton v. Terry Furniture & Loan Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1921