Poillon v. . Secor
New York Court of Appeals
Appeal from judgment of the Court of Common Pleas, in and for the city and county of ¡New York, reversing a judgment in-favor of the defendant, entered on the report of a referee. . This action was brought against the defendants as partners, alleged to be doing business under the firm name of “ Secor, Swan & Co.,” for goods purchased by that firm.
Read the full summary
Appeal from judgment of the Court of Common Pleas, in and for the city and county of ¡New York, reversing a judgment in-favor of the defendant, entered on the report of a referee. . This action was brought against the defendants as partners, alleged to be doing business under the firm name of “ Secor, Swan & Co.,” for goods purchased by that firm. In the month of January, 1867, William H. Secor, Lydia H. Secor, Samuel Swan and William West were engaged in business in the city of ¡New York, under the firm name of Secor, Swan & Co. In June of the same year, Lydia Secor retired from the firm,…
1Opinion of the Court
Dwight, C.
This case presents the question whether, if a person makes an agreement with two members of a firm, for a valuable consideration, to allow his “ name to be used in firm signatures, signs, advertisements, bill-heads, and for all and every the business purposes of the firm, so long as it remains in existence,” thereby becomes a partner as to third persons who may have sold goods to the firm on credit, and who may not have known at the time of the sale what person was represented by the fictitious name.
The title assumed under this agreement was Secor, Swan & Co. There had been a Mr.…
2Cited by11 opinions
- Thompson v. First Nat. Bank of ToledoSupreme Court of the United States · 1884
- Royal Bank & Trust Co. v. Weintraub, Gold & AlperNew York Court of Appeals · 1986
- Parchen v. AndersonMontana Supreme Court · 1885
- Bartlett v. RaymondMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1885
- Hahlo v. MayerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1890
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.