Howe v. Savory
New York Supreme Court
APPEAL from a judgment entered upon the report of a referee. In 1863 and 1864, the defendants were co-partners in business in New York, under the firm name of Geo.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from a judgment entered upon the report of a referee. In 1863 and 1864, the defendants were co-partners in business in New York, under the firm name of Geo. Savory & Co. and in Buenos Ayres, under the firm name of E. H. Fol-mar & Co. The plaintiff was in their employ as confidential clerk and book-keeper in the city of New York, down to about 24th May, 1864. While in their employ he made sundry purchases of merchandise in his own name, consisting of kerosene oil lamps, sewing machines and tobacco, and shipped the same in his own name from New York, consigned to the defendants at Buenos…
1Opinion of the CourtJambs C. Smith, J.
I think the defense of the non-joinder of Augustus T. Savory as a party plaintiff was properly overruled, in view of the peculiar circumstances of the case. By the terms of the agreement between him and the plaintiff, as found by the referee, the business relating to their joint adventure was to be done in the name of the plaintiff alone, and it was so done in fact. Savory contributed nothing to the adventure in money, services or time. The defendants dealt with the plaintiff in his individual name, and treated him as the only person' in interest. Under these circumstances, I am of opinion…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Labinsks v. HolstAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 1903
- Platt v. Iron Exchange BankWisconsin Supreme Court · 1892
- Weber v. Columbia Amusement Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1914
- Kiersted v. Orange & Alexandria RailroadNew York Supreme Court · 1876