Davis v. Briggs
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
ON Report from Nisi Prius, Rice, J., presiding. Assumpsit, by the indorsee, against makers of a note made by Joseph D. Davis & Co., and payable to the order of Jos. D. Davis, one of the firm, on demand. An account against Joseph D. Davis was filed in set-off. The defence was, that the action was not maintainable, and that the note was not indorsed until it was overdue, and that the account in set-off should be allowed.
Read the full summary
ON Report from Nisi Prius, Rice, J., presiding. Assumpsit, by the indorsee, against makers of a note made by Joseph D. Davis & Co., and payable to the order of Jos. D. Davis, one of the firm, on demand. An account against Joseph D. Davis was filed in set-off. The defence was, that the action was not maintainable, and that the note was not indorsed until it was overdue, and that the account in set-off should be allowed. The firm of Davis & Co., consisting of Davis & Briggs, was dissolved in October, 1851, more than two years after the note in suit was given, and in the agreement to dissolve,…
1Opinion of the CourtShepley, C. J.
— This suit is upon a promissory note made by Joseph D. Davis & Co. for $2045,93, on May 10, 1849, payable to Joseph D. Davis or order, on demand, with interest, and by Mm indorsed. The firm of Joseph D. Davis & Co. was composed of Joseph D. Davis and John A. Briggs, as partners in trade. The note appears to have been justly due from the firm to Joseph D. Davis.
Although he could not have maintained an action against the firm upon it, an indorsee may, if the note be now justly due. Thayer v. Buffum, 11 Metc. 398.
*306The partnership between J. D. Davis and Briggs appears to have been dissolved on…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Tucker ex rel. Deming v. BradleySupreme Court of Vermont · 1860
- Young v. ChewMissouri Court of Appeals · 1880
- People's National Bank v. WilcoxMichigan Supreme Court · 1904