Vallett v. Parker
New York Supreme Court
Error from the Monroe common pleas. This was an action by Parker, as the endorsee of a promissory note made by the defendants. The declaration stated that the defendants on, &c. at, &c. made their certain note in writing, bearing date, &c. and thereby promised, &c„ The plea was the general issue.
Read the full summary
Error from the Monroe common pleas. This was an action by Parker, as the endorsee of a promissory note made by the defendants. The declaration stated that the defendants on, &c. at, &c. made their certain note in writing, bearing date, &c. and thereby promised, &c„ The plea was the general issue. On the trial of the cause the plaintiff pro- , duced the note declared on, purporting to be signed “ Vallett & Andrus,” and “ J. N. Stebbins, (surety).” J. Vallett and L. Andrus, two of the defendants in the cause, were part- " ners in trade, transacting business under th'e name and firm of “Vallett…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Savage, Ch, J.
There was no variance. Had the declaration stated the making of the note by the defendants, “ their own proper hands and names being thereunto subscribed,” according to some precedents, perhaps there would have been a variance; but here the only statement was, that the defendants made the note, and it being proved that it was made by one of the firm, whose name was subscribed to it, it was proved to be made by both, for the act of one partner is the act of both. 4 Wendell, 412.
To entitle a plaintiff to recover against a firm on a note made by one member of the firm…
2Cited by89 opinions
- Canajoharie National Bank v. DiefendorfNew York Court of Appeals · 1890
- Vosburgh v. . DiefendorfNew York Court of Appeals · 1890
- Hamilton v. MarksSupreme Court of Missouri · 1876
- Pope v. HankeIllinois Supreme Court · 1894
- Sondheim v. GilbertIndiana Supreme Court · 1888
84 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.