Зображення сторінки
[blocks in formation]



Garrison v. The Mayor, &c., of

· New York,

497 Keech, The Rector, &c., of the

Gilbert et al. v. Beach,

445 Holy Innocents v.,


Giles v. Crosby et al.,

389 Keene, Hearne, Adm'x, v., 579
Great Western Ins. Co., Duncan Kendall et al., Gray et al. v., .... 666

378 Kennedy, Butterworth Rec'vr, v., 143
Gray et al. v. Kendall et al., 666 Ketchum et al., Peckham v.,.... 506
Griffin v. Cranston et al., ... 658 Kinsman v. The N. Y. Mut. Ins.
Grinnell et al., Lakeman et al. v., 625 Co.,...

Kitchen, Potter v., .



Kyle et al., The N. Y. & Harlem

R. R. Co. V.,


Haff v. Blossom et al., . ... 559

Hall v. Merrill,



Hall, Smith et al. v.,


Harlem R. R. Co. v. Kyle & Earle, 587 Lakeman et al. v. Grinnell et al., 625

Harlem R. R. Co., Weldon v., 576

Leffingwell, Recv'r, v. Chave et

Harlem R. R. Co., Weldon et ux.

ux., .




Leland et al., Adams V., .


Harris v. The Panama R. R. Co., 312

Leman v. The Mayor, &c., of
Hartshorne v. The Union Mutual


Ins. Co.,..


Lent, Palen v.,


Hathorne et al., Hilliker, Rec'r v., 710

Hearne, Adm'x, v. Keene,. 579

Lighte v. The Everett Ins. Co.,.. 716

Heineman v. Waterbury,


Hilliker, Rec'vr, v. Hathorne et al., 710


Holbrook v. Basset et al., ...... 147

Holdane et al. v. Butterworth,. 1 Mayor, &c., of N. Y., Garrison v., 497

Holy Innocents v. Keech, ...... 691 Mayor, &c., of N. Y., Leman

Houghton v. Dodge et al., . ... 326 McCullough v. Colby et al., . .... 477

Howard et al. v. The Astor Mut. McDonald et al., Durbrow et al.

Ins. Co.,...


V., :


N. Y., ....

V., 414

Mercantile Mutual Insurance Co., Peck v. N. Y. & Liverpool U. S.
St. Nicholas Insurance Co. V.,..238 Mail Steamship Co.,

Merrill, Hall v., ...

266 Peckham v. Ketchum et al., . 506
Merritt v. Millard,
645 Perry et al., Patterson, Adm'r, v.,

Metcalf, Brookman et al. v., 429 Potter v. Kitchen,

Millard, Merritt V., .....


Milne et al, White et al. v., 518



341 Farmers' & Mechanics' Bank v., 275


horne V.,

The Everett Ins. Co., Lighte v... 716 The St. Nicholas Ins. Co. v. Mer-

The Farmers' & Mechanics Bank

cantile Ins. Co., .....


v. Empire Stone Dressing Corp

: 275 The Union India Rubber Co., Ri-

The Great Western Ins. Co., Duri-

der et al. v., .....


can et al. v., .

378 The Union Mut. Ins. Co., Harts-


The Hudson River R. R. Co., Bos-

well, Adm'r, V.,..

699 Thomson v. Sixpenny Savings

The Jefferson Insurance Co.,

Bank, ...


Shotwell v.,.....

247 Trask v. Jones et al.,


The Mayor, &c., of N. Y., Garri-

son V.,


The Mayor, &c., of New York,


The Mercantile Mutual Ins. Co.,

St. Nicholas Ins. Co. V.,...... 238
The N. Y. Exchange Co. v. De

Union India Rubber Co., Rider et




The N. Y. & Harlem R. R. Co. v.

Union Mutual Insurance Com

Kyle & Earle,.....

587 pany, Hartshorne v.,...

The N. Y. & Harlem R. R. Co.,

Weldon v.,


The N. Y. & Harlem R. R. Co.,

Weldon et ux. V.,



The N. Y. Ins. Co., Jellinghaus v., 678

The N. Y. & Liverpool U. S. Mail Waterbury, Heineman V., ...... 686

Steamship Co., Peck v., ...... 226 Weldon v. N. Y. & Harlem R. R.

The N. Y. Mut. Ins. Co., Crosby Co., ......


369 / Weldon et ux. v. N. Y. & Harlem
The New York Mutual Insurance R. R. Co.,..

Co., Kinsman V., ...... 460 Wellington, Nelson et al. v., .... 178

The Ocean Bank, Scott v., . 192 White et al. v. Milne et al., ... 518

The Panama R. R. Co., Harris v., 312 Wilkes, Dayton V., .


The Rector, &c., of the Holy Willet, Sheriff, Thayer V., .... 344
Innocents v. Keech, 691 Wilson v. Davol,..


The Sixpenny Savings Bank, Wilson v. Roberts, .


Thomson v.,

293 | Wiltsie v. Northain,.


NOTE.-It is due to the history of these reports and to Mr. JUSTICE WOODRUFF

to state, that this volume has been wholly edited by him, excepting the preparation
of a part of the cases contained in it.


[ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

HOLDANE et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. BUTTERWORTH,


1. Where a person (B.) is in partnership with another (T.) in a business described as the business of “The Atlantic Forge Company,” but in which the correspondence is conducted and all contracts made in the name of T., (the name of B. in no manner appearing in the business,) and thereafter the firm is dissolved, and a new partnership is formed by T., the co-partner, and a third person, under a different name, to conduct the same business at the same place, and the partners in such new firm immediately send a notice of that fact. signed by them, by post, to all who had dealt with the old firm, and subsequently a vendor who had never dealt with the old firm, makes a sale of goods on credit, nominally, to such former co-partner, T., in whose name the business of the old firm had been done, and takes a note signed by the new firm in its true name, he cannot charge the person, so retiring, as a continuing partner, although he knew by common notoriety that the person so retiring had been a partner, and supposed that he then was, provided it was also a matter of public notoriety, on and after the formation of the new firm, that it had been formed by such copartner and third person, in a new name, and that it had in fact transacted its business in such new name.

Holdane et al. v. Butterworth.

2. Where the facts specially found entitle a defendant to a general verdict,
the plaintiff will not be entitled to a new trial because portions of the
charge may have been erroneous, when such portions of the charge could
not possibly affect the minds of the jury in considering the evidence
relating to or in determining such special facts.
(Before Bosworth, Ch. J., and HOFFMAN and MoxcRIEF, J. J.)

Heard, April 15; decided, May 14, 1859.

This is an appeal by the plaintiffs (John H. and James H. Holdane) from a judgment entered on a verdict in favor of the defendant, (John F. Butterworth,) rendered at a trial had before Mr. Justice SLOSSON and a jury, in March, 1858. Charles H. Tupper and Wesley M. Lee were also named as defendants, but neither of them was served with the summons or appeared in the action.

The complaint states that the defendants on the 10th of October, 1855, were partners" under the name or style of C. H. Tupper, or C. H. Tupper & Lee, at the building usually known as the Atlantic Forge, No. 268 Eleventh street," in New York city.

That on that day the plaintiff's, being partners, composing the firm of Holdane & Co., sold and delivered to the defendants ninety-one pieces of iron, for the price of $659.22, on a credit of six months, for which the defendants have not paid.

The answer denied the allegations of the complaint.

On the trial it was proved, that for several years prior to March, 1855, the defendants Butterworth and Lee were partners and did business at No. 268 Eleventh street, under the firm name of the Atlantic Forge Company. That Butterworth was its capitalist, but transacted individual business at the Merchants' Exchange, two and a half or three miles distant, and was at No. 268 Eleventh street only occasionally, sometimes once a week, and sometimes not in three or four months. The correspondence of the firm was conducted and its notes and contracts were signed in the name of Charles H. Tupper alone. The name, Charles H. Tupper, at the time of the trial, and for several years previously, was placed conspicuously on a large sign on the top of the building, the whole length of the roof, and the words “ Atlantic Forge” were painted conspicuously on the same building.

Tupper & Butterworth did no business after the first of January, 1855; they dissolved partnership prior to March of that

[ocr errors]
« НазадПродовжити »