Irvine v. Lawrence Myers & Co.
Supreme Court of Minnesota
APPEAR PROM THE DISTRICT COURT OP RAMSEY COUNTY. Complaint and answer, and judgment for Plaintiff on motion on the pleadings. The complaint alleges a partnership of Plaintiffs and also of Defendants, in June, 1856 ; a sale and delivery of goods by Plaintiffs to Defendants at that time; a part payment; and neglect and failure to pay the balance.
Read the full summary
APPEAR PROM THE DISTRICT COURT OP RAMSEY COUNTY. Complaint and answer, and judgment for Plaintiff on motion on the pleadings. The complaint alleges a partnership of Plaintiffs and also of Defendants, in June, 1856 ; a sale and delivery of goods by Plaintiffs to Defendants at that time; a part payment; and neglect and failure to pay the balance. John R. L-vine answers separately : 1st. No knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to whether Plaintiffs, were partners doing business under the firm name of Lawrence Myers & Co. 2d. He denies the goods were purchased of the Plaintiffs…
1Opinion of the CourtEmmett, C. J.
By the Court. In an action by one copartnership against another, the allegation of partnership whether as to the Plaintiffs or the Defendants is material, and its denial tenders an issue which it is the province of a jury to determine. At common law, the averment that the Plaintiffs were partners had to be proved as alleged. This was necessary even under the plea of the general issue, as that plea was construed as admitting only that there was a copartnership of some sort, but not that it was composed of the persons named in the declaration. Under our practice the allegation need not be…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Fetz v. C. S. Clark & Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1862
- Barber v. ClendanielSuperior Court of Delaware · 1917