Schroder v. Pinch

Decided March 26, 1901

Michigan Supreme Court · decided 1901-03-26

Assumpsit by William Schroder against Benjamin W. Pinch for goods sold and delivered. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant brings error. Defendant, Pinch, and one Robinson, were copartners under the firm name of Pinch & Robinson, and were engaged in the manufacture of carriages. ■ While they were ■copartners, plaintiff, a grocery man, bought of them a phaeton for $150; $50 to be paid in groceries, and $25 per month until the balance was paid.

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently May 1917

2 state decisions

Relies on Slutts v. Chafee · Hardy, Brown, Goss & Co. v. Cheeney

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Decided 1901-03-26

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Grant, J.

¶1(after stating the facts). Two defenses; are interposed:

¶21. That the account sued upon was not a partnership debt-

¶32. That plaintiff cannot maintain the action, because he was not a party to the agreement between Pinch and Robinson when the partnership was dissolved.

¶4We think there is testimony tending to show that it was a partnership account. That was the only question submitted to the jury, and they have settled it in favor of the plaintiff.

¶5Defendant was liable as a member of the firm, and no-doubt could arise as to plaintiff’s right to recover as against the members of the firm. The declaration in*187formed him of the nature of the claim, and he could only take advantage of the nonjoinder of his partner as defendant by a plea in abatement. Story, Partn. §§ 241 (note), 455; Slutts v. Chafee, 48 Wis. 617 (4 N. W. 763); Hardy v. Cheney, 42 Vt. 417; 15 Enc. Pl. & Prac. 894.

¶6Judgment affirmed.

The other Justices concurred.