Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

25 Conn. 392

Benedict v. Stevens

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided October 15, 1856

Supreme Court of Connecticut · decided 1856-10-15

This was an action of book debt, against Nathaniel B. Stevens and Augustus P. Lawrence, described in the writ as partners under the name of N. B. Stevens & Company. The suit was brought to recover the price of certain castings ordered by the defendant Stevens, and charged by the plaintiff to the firm of N. B. Stevens & Company, for whom he supposed they were ordered.

Cited by 1 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 1861

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1856-10-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Hinman, J.

¶1The defendant, one of the firm of Lawrence & Stevens, ordered of the plaintiff certain castings, which were sent to Norfolk, according to the defendant’s directions, not informing him for whom they were ordered. The plaintiff supposed that they were intended for the firm of N. B. Stevens & Co., which had consisted of the defendant and Augustus P. Lawrence, and he accordingly charged them to that firm, and commenced his suit against them as partners. But in April, 1851, previous to the ordering of the castings, the old firm was dissolved, and a .new copartnership formed between the defendant and E. Grove Lawrence, under the name of Lawrence & Stevens; and, as due notice of the dissolution of the old firm was given, and the plaintiff, moreover, had never had any dealings with that firm, he of course could not recover against Augustus P. Lawrence. Stevens, however, was undoubtedly liable, as the goods were ordered by him personally, so that we need not consider what would be the effect if he were liable only as partner with E. G. Lawrence; and the statute, tit. i., chap, xi., sec. 150, made *395it the duty of the court to render judgment against him, because, against him, the plaintiff sustained his case. Accordingly, judgment was so rendered, and Lawrence, who was sued as his partner, had judgment for costs. This is in strict conformity to the statute, and is correct. The original plaintiff is, therefore, entitled to judgment against Stevens, on his motion in error.

¶2In this opinion Storrs, J., concurred. Waite, C. J., was not present.

¶3Judgment affirmed.

/25/conn/392 · .json · Public domain