Legal Opinion

Jennings v. Estes

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Decided July 15, 1839PublishedCited by 5 opinions

ExceptioNS from the Court of Common Pleas, Pebham J. presiding. Assumpsit against Estes, Rollins, Webster, &f Heald on an instrument of which the following is a copy. “ 1$ 83,44. Orono, April 10, 1836. For value received, we promise to pay to Stephen Jennings, or order, tbe sum of eighty-three dollars and forty-four cents, to be paid in the month of July next, and interest. “Rollins, Estes, Webster & Heald, “By Jefferson Heald.” Heald and Webster were defaulted.

Read the full summary

ExceptioNS from the Court of Common Pleas, Pebham J. presiding. Assumpsit against Estes, Rollins, Webster, &f Heald on an instrument of which the following is a copy. “ 1$ 83,44. Orono, April 10, 1836. For value received, we promise to pay to Stephen Jennings, or order, tbe sum of eighty-three dollars and forty-four cents, to be paid in the month of July next, and interest. “Rollins, Estes, Webster & Heald, “By Jefferson Heald.” Heald and Webster were defaulted. The signature was in the handwriting of Heald, one of the defendants, and Rollins and Estes denied, that he was in any way…

1Opinion of the Court

The opinion of the Court was by

Shepley J.

'The acts and declarations of a person, tending to prove that he is a partner with another, bind him, but do not affect the other. When a partnership is to be proved by the acts and declarations of those who are alleged to be partners, it often becomes necessary to prove those of one person at a time. And if it were illegal to do so, it would preclude the proof of a partnership by proving the acts and declarations of each party to the contract. And yet such testimony might clearly prove a partnership by the acts and declarations of each member of it,…

2Cited by5 opinions

  1. Caswell v. Maplewood GarageSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1930
  2. Dimon v. RomeoSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1923
  3. Richardson v. PierceNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1908
  4. Goad v. Standard Tank & Steel WorksCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1923
  5. Cowan v. KinneyOhio Supreme Court · 1878

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API