Suydam v. . Barber
New York Court of Appeals
Appeal from the Superior Court of New York city. The action was for money paid by the plaintiffs upon two bills of exchange drawn on them by the defendants, who were partners under the firm of Barber, Girty & Doran, the plaintiffs having no funds of the defendants in their hands to pay the same.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Superior Court of New York city. The action was for money paid by the plaintiffs upon two bills of exchange drawn on them by the defendants, who were partners under the firm of Barber, Girty & Doran, the plaintiffs having no funds of the defendants in their hands to pay the same. Girty only defended, and on the ground that the plaintiffs brought an action, against Barber alone, in the Common Pleas of St. Louis county, Missouri: recovered judgment therein (among other things) for the debt occasioned by the payment of the bills of exchange drawn by the defendants: and that…
1DissentHarris, J.
(Dissenting.) The defendants are sued upon a copartnership contract. Such a contract is, at common law, joint and not several. If one copartner be sued upon such a contract, the nonjoinder of his copartner is an available ground of defence. He has a right to have the contract enforced against others who are jointly liable with him, as well as against himself. But he may waive this right by omitting to take the objection in the manner prescribed by law, and then judgment may be recovered against him individually upon the joiñt contract. The contract is thus merged in the highenisecurity the…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- McElmoyle Ex Rel. Bailey v. CohenSupreme Court of the United States · 1839
- Robertson v. SmithNew York Supreme Court · 1821
- Sunderland v. LoderNew York Supreme Court · 1830
- Peters v. SanfordCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1845
- People v. CramNew York Supreme Court · 1853
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.