Marlett v. Jackman
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract upon a promissory note for $1000, dated Boston, June 30, 1855, signed “ Jackman, Hathaway & Co.,” payable to the order of William J. Marlett in six months after date, at the Bank of Syracuse, New York, and by him indorsed to the plaintiff.
Read the full summary
Contract upon a promissory note for $1000, dated Boston, June 30, 1855, signed “ Jackman, Hathaway & Co.,” payable to the order of William J. Marlett in six months after date, at the Bank of Syracuse, New York, and by him indorsed to the plaintiff. Jackman and Hathaway alone defended the action, and in their several answers set forth, amongst other things, that if any such firm as Jackman, Hathaway & Co. ever existed, it had expired and was dissolved before the note was given. At the trial in the superior court, before Allen, C. J., the plaintiff introduced evidence tending to show that in…
1Opinion of the CourtBigelow, C. J.
It is certainly somewhat remarkable that no case can be found either in this country or in England in which the question has arisen and been adjudicated whether, in case a copartnership is dissolved by death, the surviving partners are bound to give notice of such dissolution, in order to avoid a liability occasioned by the subsequent misuse of the copartnership name by one of the firm. The adjudged cases have gone no further than to hold that neither the estate of the deceased partner nor his heirs or personal representatives can *290be held on a contract entered into in the name of the firm…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Griswold v. WaddingtonNew York Supreme Court · 1819
- Nathaniel L. v. WaddingtonNew York Supreme Court · 1818
- Caldwell v. StilemanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1829
3Cited by2 opinions
- Irvin v. . HarrisSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1921
- Hornaday v. CowgillIndiana Court of Appeals · 1913