Mellendy v. New England Protective Union
Supreme Court of Vermont
Assumpsit, upon the common counts, for money had and received. The defendants were sued as partners negotiating in business under the name and firm of the New England Protective Union, Division 172. At the April Term, 1862, Windham County Court, Barrett, L, presiding-, eight defendants were defaulted. The remaining defendants went to trial by jury upon the general issue.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit, upon the common counts, for money had and received. The defendants were sued as partners negotiating in business under the name and firm of the New England Protective Union, Division 172. At the April Term, 1862, Windham County Court, Barrett, L, presiding-, eight defendants were defaulted. The remaining defendants went to trial by jury upon the general issue. A hook containing a record of the organization of the division and the names of the members, was put into the case by the plaintiff without objection. The plaintiff produced one Winfield Wright as a witness, who testified…
1Opinion of the CourtAldis, J.
In Loomis v. Barrett, 4 Vt. 450, it was held* that, in an action on book account, the non-joinder of a defendant need not be pleaded in abatement, but might be shown on the trial before the auditor. It is sought in this case to extend the principle to actions upon the common counts in assumpsit. It is said the declaration, as in book, does not show what the plaintiff’s claims are, and the defendant can not tell whether others are or are not liable jointly with him till he comes to trial. But the defendant can require a specification of the plaintiff’s claims, and the specification, unlike…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Loomis v. BarrettSupreme Court of Vermont · 1832
3Cited by1 opinion
- Shuman v. SteinelWisconsin Supreme Court · 1906