Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

7 Misc. 256

Adee v. Crow

City of New York Municipal Court

Decided February 15, 1894

City of New York Municipal Court · decided 1894-02-15

<p>In an action by the transferee of a promissory note against the maker, the fact that the plaintiff does business under a firm name in which the words “ & Co.,” are used, when there is in fact no partner, is unavailable as a defense.</p>

Relies on Gay v. . Seibold

Decided 1894-02-15

Ehrlich, Ch. J.

¶1The action is on a promissory note made by the defendant to the order of one John Tilley, and by him delivered to the plaintiff.

¶2The sole ground urged against the verdict is that the plaintiff did business under the name and style of Fred. Adee & Co.,” without having a partner.

¶3The defense was not pleaded, and the plaintiff was not called upon to prove that he had secured the right to use the firm name under existing statutes.

¶4But aside from this, the defense was unavailable against the note in suit. Gay v. Seibold, 97 N. Y. 475.

¶5The appeal is destitute of merit and the judgment must be affirmed, with costs.

¶6Van Wyck and Fitzsimons, JJ., concur,

¶7Judgment affirmed, with costs.

/7/misc/256 · .json · Public domain