Heenan v. Nash
Supreme Court of Minnesota
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COUBT OF RAMSEY COUNTY. Points and Authorities for Respondent. A party cannot prove more facts than he alleges, therefore the complaint must show on its face a prima facie cause. Chitty's PI., marg., p. 221, 222. Hence we must first settle conclusively what this complaint prima facie shows.
Read the full summary
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COUBT OF RAMSEY COUNTY. Points and Authorities for Respondent. A party cannot prove more facts than he alleges, therefore the complaint must show on its face a prima facie cause. Chitty's PI., marg., p. 221, 222. Hence we must first settle conclusively what this complaint prima facie shows. We think when a partner uses the firm name, he prima facie intends to pledge the firm credit, and to contract a firm obligation ; but where he uses his own individual name (it being different from the firm name, 5 Mason, 176,) he intends only to pledge his own credit, and to…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court
FlandrAu,
Action on bill of exchange *409against acceptor. On the 18th day of September, 1858, the Defendant, Patrick Nash, and one William B. McGrorty were partners, under the name, firm and style of “Nash & Mc-Grorty.” On that day Patrick Murnane drew the bill in question on the said firm, in favor of William Devine, and to his.order, payable in one month from date. William Devine endorsed the bill to the Plaintiff, who, on the 25th day of July, 1859, presented the same to Patrick Nash, who accepted it by writing on its face the following words : — “ Accepted this 25 July, 1859.”
The…
2Cited by9 opinions
- Rogers v. BentonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1888
- Hill v. TownleySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1891
- Sucker v. CranmerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1914
- Seaboard Surety Co. v. H & R CONSTRUCTION CORP.District Court, D. Minnesota · 1957
- Hamel v. CorbinSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1897
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.