Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

2 Johns. Cas. 374

Bernard v. Wilcox

New York Supreme Court

Decided October 15, 1801

New York Supreme Court · decided 1801-10-15

This was an action of assumpsit for goods sold and delivered. The evidence was, that the account rendered to the defendant, and a letter demanding payment, were in the name of William Bernard & Son.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1801-10-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently January 1915

2 state decisions

10180118101820183018401850186018701880189019001910decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Lewis, Ch. J.

¶1delivered the opinion of the court. The decisions in the case of Smith v. Barrow, (2 Term Rep. 476,) and Hyat v. Hare, (Comb. 382,) come fully up to this case. In the first, it is determined that a surviving partner may maintain a suit in his own name, for a debt incurred to the partnership, after the death of his co-partner; and in the second, that he may maintain such suit after the death of his partner, though the debt was contracted during the life-time of such partner.(a)

¶2Motion denied.

¶3(a) See 1 Chitt. PI. Am. ed. 1828, p. 11, and references. Broom on Parties, 65,97. Penn v. Butler, 4 Dall. 354. Nixon v. M’Carthy, 2 Dallas, 65, *37666, note; 1 Dallas, 250 ; 5 Serg. & Rawle, 86. Murray v. Mumford, 6 Cowen, 441. Hill v. McNeil, 6 Porter, 29. Allen v. Blanchard, 9 Cowen, 681. Collyer on Partn. Perk. ed. 666, 7, 674, and authorities. See, however, per Spencer, J. in Holmes and Drake v. De Camp, 1 Johns. Rep. 84.

/2/johnscas/374 · .json · Public domain