Doty v. Bates
New York Supreme Court
THIS was an action of assumpsit upon three promissory notes, made by the defendants, who carried on the business of tanning, currying, and shoemaking, under the firm of Samuel Handy 8c Co. payable to the plaintiff, and was tried at the Ontario circuit, in 1814. The declaration averred the defendants to have been partners in the business of tanning, &c. and that the said Samuel Handy, for himself and the defendant Bates, made and signed, by the name and description of Samuel…
Read the full summary
THIS was an action of assumpsit upon three promissory notes, made by the defendants, who carried on the business of tanning, currying, and shoemaking, under the firm of Samuel Handy 8c Co. payable to the plaintiff, and was tried at the Ontario circuit, in 1814. The declaration averred the defendants to have been partners in the business of tanning, &c. and that the said Samuel Handy, for himself and the defendant Bates, made and signed, by the name and description of Samuel Handy Sr Co. a certain note in writing, and thereby, for himself and his said partner, for value received, promised to…
1Opinion of the CourtPlatt, J.
The only points in this case are, 1. Whether the declaration set forth the notes according to their legal import and effect.
2. Whether, under such a partnership, it was incumbent on the plaintiff to prove the particular consideration of the notes,
I think the law is clearly against the defendants, on both points.
1. A note made by Handy, wherein he says “ I promise,” &c. and signs the copartnership name, means, J, one of the partners, promise, on behalf of the firm, Sec.
2. The partnership being admitted, the presumption of law is, that a note made by one partner in the name of the firm, was…
2Cited by12 opinions
- Crosby v. JerolomanIndiana Supreme Court · 1871
- Martin v. Niagara Falls Paper Manufacturing Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1890
- Deardorf's Administrator v. ThacherSupreme Court of Missouri · 1883
- Pease v. ColeSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1885
- Stevens v. McLachlanMichigan Supreme Court · 1899
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.