¶1 We do not concur with his Honor is the view taken by him, in respect to the ownership of the mule.
¶2 The fact that Jacob Little was in partnership with John “ in farming and in the tannery business,” in the absence *31 of any evidence that Jacob carried on any separate business of his own in which mules and horses were needed, was not only some evidence to be left to the jury that the mule was purchased for the firm, but, as it seems to us, was plenary evidence of the fact. It was a matter of indifference to the defendant whether the mule-was purchased for the firm or for Jacob Little alone ; and when the existence of the firm was established, the act of issuing the writ in the name of the persons composing the firm, is very similar to the act of sending the mule to the farm or tannery, and raised a presumption that the mule was bought for the firm, so as to put upon the defendant — if he wished to defeat the action on a ground which did not affect its results — the onus of proving that the mule was, in fact, bought for Jacob Little alone.
¶3 The nonsuit will be set aside, and a judgment entered upon the verdict for the plaintiffs, in pursuance of the agreement under which the question was reserved.
¶4 Per Curiam. . Judgment reversed.