Walden v. Sherburne
New York Supreme Court
THIS was an action of assumpsit for goods sold and de- . , . , . , -it hvered, money had and received, money paid, and money lent and advanced. The defendant, Sherburne, alone, was taken and appeared.
Read the full summary
THIS was an action of assumpsit for goods sold and de- . , . , . , -it hvered, money had and received, money paid, and money lent and advanced. The defendant, Sherburne, alone, was taken and appeared. The cause was tried before Mr. J. Platt, at the New-York sittings, in November, 1817. It was admitted,, that on and before the 29th September, 1806, the defendants were partners transacting business at Nantes, in France ; and that on the 30th of September, they entered into the following agreement: 66 We, the undesigned, Samuel Sherburne and Samuel Hunter Eakin, both natives of the United States…
1Opinion of the CourtSpencer, J.
The verdict being taken by consent, subject to the opinion of the court, we must draw such conclusions from the evidence, as we think the jury ought to have drawn. The principal inquiry is, whether the defendants were general partners, in consequence of the agreement between them, of the 30th of September, 1806. Regarding the whole of that instrument, the circumstances of the times, and the conduct of the parties under it, I feel no hesitation in saying they were general partners. It appears, by the recital to the agreement, that the defendants had been partners in a commercial house at…
2Cited by57 opinions
- Little v. . BanksNew York Court of Appeals · 1881
- President, Directors & Co. of Rensselaer Glass Factory v. ReidCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1825
- Dunlap & Co. v. CodySupreme Court of Iowa · 1871
- Van Keuren v. . ParmeleeNew York Court of Appeals · 1849
- Henderson Cotton Manufacturing Co. v. Lowell Machine ShopsCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1888
52 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.