Hackley v. Patrick

Decided November 15, 1808

New York Supreme Court · decided 1808-11-15

THIS was an action of assumpsit, for goods sold and , , , , , , , . , mi delivered, money lent, and money had and received. JL he cause was tried at the last sittings held in New-Tork. Patrick and Hastie entered into copartnership in 1800, ant* carried on their business in the city of New-Tork. On the 31st December, 1801, they dissolved their partnership, and a notice of the dissolution was published in the gazeaes Gf the city, in the following words : “ Notice.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1808-11-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently December 1872

6 state decisions

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 →

Per Curiam.

¶1This is a clear case. After a dissolution of a copartnership, the power of one party to bind the others, wholly ceases. There is no reason why his acknowledgment of an account should bind his copartners, any more than his giving a promissory note in the name of the firm, or any' other act. The plaintiff ought to have produced'furthef evidence of the debt; the acknowledgment of 'Hastie alone was not sufficient to charge Patrick.

¶2There must be a new trial; with costs to abide the event of the suit.

¶3New trial granted.