Champlin v. Tilley

Decided April 15, 1809

THE plaintiff, in his declaration, stated, “ that at New-Port, the defendants, by said William Tilley, purchased af said deceased a quantity of hemp, to be manufactured . at their rope factory m A cw-London, on a credit of four months, and to secure payment thereof, the defendants, at said Mew-Port, by said William Tilley, one oí said firm and company, and then joint mechanic and trader with said James Tilley as aforesaid, made, executed, and to said deceased, then in full…

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently June 1900

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1809-04-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

By the Court.

¶1The book must go to the jury, as it has been proved, and indeed conceded, that James Tilley made a few entries in it. The jury are to decide Whether the book, as it is, amounts to any proof of partnership.

¶2The jury found a verdict for the defendant.

¶3His counsel then moved, that judgment should be entered up for both defendants, though one of them had been defaulted.

¶4The Court said, this was the correct mode of pro-seeding; for if the jury had found, that one defendant assumed and promised, and the other did not. iudsr- . , , ,. , ’ J b ment must have been entered up for both, the declaration being iounded on a joint promise only.