Benedict & Burnham Manufacturing Co. v. Hutchinson
The Superior Court of New York City
Appeal by defendant from judgment entered on a verdict for the plaintiff found on the direction of the trial judge, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial. Action against David J. Hutchinson, Alexander Hogg, and Alexander Patterson, as copartners, to recover $4,207.83, being the aggregate amount remaining due on account of certain promissory notes made by the firm of Hogg & Patterson, and payable to the plaintiff.
Read the full summary
Appeal by defendant from judgment entered on a verdict for the plaintiff found on the direction of the trial judge, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial. Action against David J. Hutchinson, Alexander Hogg, and Alexander Patterson, as copartners, to recover $4,207.83, being the aggregate amount remaining due on account of certain promissory notes made by the firm of Hogg & Patterson, and payable to the plaintiff. Of this firm the plaintiff claimed that Hutchinson was a general partner, by reason of his having falsely stated in a certificate of special partnership filed by him,…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
O’Gorman, J.
—(After stating the facts as above).—The evidence is sufficient to sustain the plaintiff’s contention that the defendants were general partners, for the cause set forth in the complaint.
Of the amount of $10,000 stated to have been paid into the funds of the firm by Hutchinson, only $8,000 was actually paid, and as to the remaining $2,000, he returned a note made by Hogg individually for that amount, which was put to the credit of Hutchinson on the books of the new firm. This is not a compliance with the requirements of the law (Sharp v. Hutchinson, 100 N. Y. 533 ;…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Durant v. . AbendrothNew York Court of Appeals · 1884
- Matter of Assignment of HolbrookNew York Court of Appeals · 1885
- Sharp v. . HutchinsonNew York Court of Appeals · 1885