Austin & Taylor v. Williams, Chase, & Gardener
Ohio Supreme Court
This cause was adjourned from the Supreme Court of Hamilton county, and came before the court upon a motion for a new trial. The plaintiffs lived in the city of New York, and the suit was brought upon a promissory note, subscribed William Chase & Co. This note was executed by William Chase only, and in everything preliminary to the trial, stood exactly upon the same grounds as the case of Aspinwall v. Williams and others, reported Yol.
Read the full summary
This cause was adjourned from the Supreme Court of Hamilton county, and came before the court upon a motion for a new trial. The plaintiffs lived in the city of New York, and the suit was brought upon a promissory note, subscribed William Chase & Co. This note was executed by William Chase only, and in everything preliminary to the trial, stood exactly upon the same grounds as the case of Aspinwall v. Williams and others, reported Yol. I., p. 84. The parties defendants .being the same, and the foundation of the partnership the same as in that case. At the trial of this case the defendants…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court :
The evidence that the plaintiffs understood the defendant to be a partner at the time the credit was given, was not offered or admitted to prove the partnership, '[but to, prove that credit was, in fact, given to the defendant Williams. *For this purpose it was clearly admissible. Whether the conduct of the defendant had been such as to authorize this understanding, was a distinct fact, to be proved by other testimony, without which the plaintiff could not recover.
In the case of Aspinwall v. Williams and others, 1 Ohio, 84, this court decided, upon full deliberation, that the…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Queen City Petroleum Products Co. v. Norwood-Hyde Park Bank & Trust Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1934
- Meier & Co. v. First National BankOhio Supreme Court · 1896
- Rogers v. EdmundLicking Circuit Court · 1901