Southwick v. Allen
Supreme Court of Vermont
This was an action on a note dated 20th May 1836, payable to plaintiffs, and signed “Allen & Blodget.” Plea general issue, and trial by jury. The plaintiffs, t o sustain the issue on their part, offered evidence tending to prove that the defendants, previously to the execution of the note in question, were partners, as merchants, at Bristol, Vt., and that the name of “Allen & Blodget” was in the hand-writing of the defendant, Blodget.
Read the full summary
This was an action on a note dated 20th May 1836, payable to plaintiffs, and signed “Allen & Blodget.” Plea general issue, and trial by jury. The plaintiffs, t o sustain the issue on their part, offered evidence tending to prove that the defendants, previously to the execution of the note in question, were partners, as merchants, at Bristol, Vt., and that the name of “Allen & Blodget” was in the hand-writing of the defendant, Blodget. To sustain the issue on their part, the defendants offered evidence tending to prove that the defendants were partners, as merchants, in the spring of 1835, at…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Bennett, J.
The first question presented for the consideration of the court is, whether the evidence produced tended to prove a dissolution of the partnership of Allen & Blodget. If so, it should have gone to the jury.
That the discontinuance of the business of the old firrp and the formation of a new one, who succeed in business at the same store, has no tendency to prove a dissolution, is more than can be maintained. The object of the formation of a partnership is the transaction of business, and when this object ceases, there is no inducement to…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Wait v. BrewsterSupreme Court of Vermont · 1859
- Weise v. Gray's Harbor Commercial Co.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1904