Carlton & Manning v. Coffin
Supreme Court of Vermont
Evidence. Partnership. Statute of limitations. Assumpsit upon a promissory note. The writ, which was dated December 7th, 1851, and served February 17th, 1852, described the defendants as partners under the name of “ The Ludlow Woolen Mill.” Plea the general issue, and the statute of limitations; trial by the court, December Term, 1853, — Collamer, J., presiding.
Read the full summary
Evidence. Partnership. Statute of limitations. Assumpsit upon a promissory note. The writ, which was dated December 7th, 1851, and served February 17th, 1852, described the defendants as partners under the name of “ The Ludlow Woolen Mill.” Plea the general issue, and the statute of limitations; trial by the court, December Term, 1853, — Collamer, J., presiding. The plaintiffs presented a note of which the following is a copy. $385.78. Ludlow, March 12, 1845. Due on demand to Carlton & Manning, three hundred eighty- “ five ffi dollars, value received. “ For the Ludlow Woolen Mill, “Geo. S.…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Bennett, J.
It appeal's from the cross-examination of the witness, that the only knowledge he had of the existence of a partnership between the defendants, was derived from general reputation. We think this is not competent evidence to prove a partnership.
It was so held in Hicks v. Cram et al. 17 Vt. 449. Common reputation is but hear-say evidence, and this is not a case which allows of such evidence. Partnerships are like other contracts, and must be proved according to the ordinary rules of evidence. So far as third persons are concerned, it is not…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Halliday v. McDougallNew York Supreme Court · 1838
- J. C. Hicks & Co. v. CramSupreme Court of Vermont · 1845
- Brown v. CrandallSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1835
3Cited by5 opinions
- Benjamin v. CovertWisconsin Supreme Court · 1879
- Chaffee's Sons v. Estate of BlanchardSupreme Court of Vermont · 1933
- Mastin v. BranhamSupreme Court of Missouri · 1885
- Big Diamond Milling Co. v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1919
- Wald v. ArnoldMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1897