Ross v. Drinker
The Superior Court of New York City
The question in this case was, whether the defendant was a partner with the plaintiff" or not. It was an action of indebitatus assumpsit, for money had and received, money lent and advanced, &c.; and the defendant, for the purpose of defeating a recovery, in an action at law, set up a partnership with the plaintiff, as his defence.
Read the full summary
The question in this case was, whether the defendant was a partner with the plaintiff" or not. It was an action of indebitatus assumpsit, for money had and received, money lent and advanced, &c.; and the defendant, for the purpose of defeating a recovery, in an action at law, set up a partnership with the plaintiff, as his defence. At the trial of the cause, it appeared that the defendant had been in the employment of the plaintiff, under the agreement hereinafter mentioned, and that, from entries made in the books of the plaintiff, by the defendant himself, (who had kept them,) a balance of…
1Opinion of the Court
The Court refused to grant a new trial, being of opinion that the agreement, disclosed by the plaintiff’s answer to the defendant’s bill, did not constitute a case of partnership. And, as all the other testimony was left to the jury, and they found against the partnership, the court were of opinion, that their verdict ought not to be disturbed, being supported by the evidence.
*422New trial denied, and the verdict to stand subject to a liquidation of the accounts by referees.
[J. Greenwood, Att'y for the plff. C. N. Mead, Att’y for the deft.]
Note.—This cause was originally brought before the court,…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Loomis v. MarshallSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1837
- Olmstead v. HillSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1840
- Taylor v. HerringThe Superior Court of New York City · 1863
- De Wolf v. HowlandCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1878