Harris v. Lindsay
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania
This was a motion for a new trial. [See Case No. 6,123.] insisted that partners being, as to debts contracted by them, principal debtors, they can by no act or agreement between themselves change their situation to that of principal and surety, without the express assent of the creditors: their liability is unconditional; neither of them can be discharged from his obligation but by payment or release, nor can any act of the creditor amount to a release which he did not…
Read the full summary
This was a motion for a new trial. [See Case No. 6,123.] insisted that partners being, as to debts contracted by them, principal debtors, they can by no act or agreement between themselves change their situation to that of principal and surety, without the express assent of the creditors: their liability is unconditional; neither of them can be discharged from his obligation but by payment or release, nor can any act of the creditor amount to a release which he did not clearly so intend; and this intention ought, in this case, to have been left to the jury. Forbearance, or giving time to the…
1Opinion of the Court
WASHINGTON, Circuit Justice.
This case comes before the court upon a rule to show cause why a new trial should not be granted,. *638upon the ground of a misdirection of the court in the charge to the jury. The material facts of the case may be stated in a few words. Lindsay and Tomlinson,' carrying on trade under that name, having had dealings with the plaintiffs, dissolved their partnership early in the year 1816, being indebted to the plaintiffs in a balance of $2,691. It was agreed between them that Tomlinson should retain the partnership effects, and pay all the debts of the concern, and…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Thacher v. DinsmoreMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1809
- Johnson v. WeedNew York Supreme Court · 1812
- Murray v. GouverneurNew York Supreme Court · 1800
- Chapman v. DurantMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1813
3Cited by7 opinions
- Yates v. DonaldsonCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1853
- Hard v. BurtonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1890
- Grubbe v. PierceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1914
- Norman v. Jackson Fertilizer Co.Mississippi Supreme Court · 1901
- Fogarty v. CullenThe Superior Court of New York City · 1883
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.