Hackley v. Patrick
New York Supreme Court
THIS was an action of assumpsit, for goods sold and , , , , , , , . , mi delivered, money lent, and money had and received. JL he cause was tried at the last sittings held in New-Tork. Patrick and Hastie entered into copartnership in 1800, ant* carried on their business in the city of New-Tork. On the 31st December, 1801, they dissolved their partnership, and a notice of the dissolution was published in the gazeaes Gf the city, in the following words : “ Notice.
Read the full summary
THIS was an action of assumpsit, for goods sold and , , , , , , , . , mi delivered, money lent, and money had and received. JL he cause was tried at the last sittings held in New-Tork. Patrick and Hastie entered into copartnership in 1800, ant* carried on their business in the city of New-Tork. On the 31st December, 1801, they dissolved their partnership, and a notice of the dissolution was published in the gazeaes Gf the city, in the following words : “ Notice. The mercantile concern, under the firm of Henry Hastie & Co. expired on the 31st ultimo, by its own limitation, All persons having…
1Per curiam
This is a clear case. After a dissolution of a copartnership, the power of one party to bind the others, wholly ceases. There is no reason why his acknowledgment of an account should bind his copartners, any more than his giving a promissory note in the name of the firm, or any' other act. The plaintiff ought to have produced'furthef evidence of the debt; the acknowledgment of 'Hastie alone was not sufficient to charge Patrick.
There must be a new trial; with costs to abide the event of the suit.
New trial granted.
2Cited by25 opinions
- Van Keuren v. . ParmeleeNew York Court of Appeals · 1849
- Osgood v. President & Directors of the Manhattan Co.New York Supreme Court · 1824
- Tate v. ClementsSupreme Court of Florida · 1878
- Lane v. DotyNew York Supreme Court · 1848
- Hammon v. HuntleyNew York Supreme Court · 1825
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.