Smith & Marshall v. Rogers
New York Supreme Court
THIS was an action of assumpsit for woods sold and deliv-erod. Tho plaintiffs, under the linn of Smith & Marshall, in April. 1816. sold to the defendants, partners in trade, under tho linn of Rogers ⅛- Jln/i< nt. a quantity of merchandize.
Read the full summary
THIS was an action of assumpsit for woods sold and deliv-erod. Tho plaintiffs, under the linn of Smith & Marshall, in April. 1816. sold to the defendants, partners in trade, under tho linn of Rogers ⅛- Jln/i< nt. a quantity of merchandize. In Arpil, jSJd, subsequent to the side, tho defendants dissolved their copartnership; and on the 22d of April, Bement wrote to the plaintiffs, as follows: “Our firm was dissolved on the 3d instant, and I assumed your demand, which you may rest assured will be paid as soon, as possible.” On the 27th of April, the plaintiffs answered, as follows: “We observe…
1Opinion of the CourtYates, J.
The declaration of the plaintiffs, contained in their letter to C. JY. Bernent, of the 27th of April, 1816, that they had observed their partnership was dissolved, and that they were perfectly satisfied that he had assumed the payment of their debt, cannot be considered as a discharge of the firm of R. ⅝- B., so as to confine the remedy of the plaintiffs to B. alone; nor does it appear that it was so understood at the time. The payment of one hundred dollars made on the 13th of August, contradicts such a construction. When he sent the money, he requested the plaintiffs to place it to the…
2Cited by11 opinions
- Waydell v. LuerCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1846
- Tyner v. StoopsIndiana Supreme Court · 1858
- Ford v. MitchellWisconsin Supreme Court · 1862
- Chase v. VaughanSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1849
- Matherson v. BeldenAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1897
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.