Bixby v. Janssen

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York

Bixby v. Janssen

3 F. Cas. 488, 6 Blatchf. 315, 1869 U.S. App. LEXIS 1193

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York

DecidedMarch 13, 1869

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 3 F. Cas. 488 (Bixby v. Janssen) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bixby v. Janssen, 3 F. Cas. 488, 6 Blatchf. 315, 1869 U.S. App. LEXIS 1193 (circtsdny 1869).

Pincite

Opinion

BLATCHFORD, District Judge.

I do not think, on the evidence, that the firm of Jans-sen, Schmidt & Ruperti is liable to the plaintiff for the claim sued for. I think, however, that the persons who composed the former firm of J. W. Schmidt & Co., on the 23d of February', 1865, are liable for it. Those persons were John W. Schmidt, Edward Von-derheydt, and the defendant Janssen. The defendant Schmidt, who is consul in the United States for the kingdom of Saxony, was not a mémber of the firm of J. W. Schmidt & Co. on the 23d of February, 1865. He became such in March, 18G5. It is only by reason of his being a foreign consul that this court has any jurisdiction of this action. The defendant Janssen was a member of the firm of J. W. Schmidt & Co. on the 23d of February, 1865, and, as such, is liable to the plaintiff for the claim sued for, according to the written memorandum of that date; but, as the firm of Janssen, Schmidt & Ruperti, as a firm, is not liable for the claim, and there can be no recovery in this suit against the defendant Schmidt, the consul, the jurisdiction of the court to give judgment against Janssen fails, he having been properly sued in this court only as a copartner with the defendant Schmidt, and being, in fact, sued only as a member of the firm of Janssen, Schmidt & Ruperti, and his liability as such copartner not being established. Janssen, though liable, as a member of the firm of J. W. Schmidt & Co. on the 23d of February,- 1865, for this claim, must be sued for it in a state court.

I, therefore, find for the defendants.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

BLATCHFORD, District Judge.

I do not think, on the evidence, that the firm of Jans-sen, Schmidt & Ruperti is liable to the plaintiff for the claim sued for. I think, however, that the persons who composed the former firm of J. W. Schmidt & Co., on the 23d of February', 1865, are liable for it. Those persons were John W. Schmidt, Edward Von-derheydt, and the defendant Janssen. The defendant Schmidt, who is consul in the United States for the kingdom of Saxony, was not a mémber of the firm of J. W. Schmidt & Co. on the 23d of February, 1865. He became such in March, 18G5. It is only by reason of his being a foreign consul that this court has any jurisdiction of this action. The defendant Janssen was a member of the firm of J. W. Schmidt & Co. on the 23d of February, 1865, and, as such, is liable to the plaintiff for the claim sued for, according to the written memorandum of that date; but, as the firm of Janssen, Schmidt & Ruperti, as a firm, is not liable for the claim, and there can be no recovery in this suit against the defendant Schmidt, the consul, the jurisdiction of the court to give judgment against Janssen fails, he having been properly sued in this court only as a copartner with the defendant Schmidt, and being, in fact, sued only as a member of the firm of Janssen, Schmidt & Ruperti, and his liability as such copartner not being established. Janssen, though liable, as a member of the firm of J. W. Schmidt & Co. on the 23d of February,- 1865, for this claim, must be sued for it in a state court.

I, therefore, find for the defendants.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 F. Cas. 488, 6 Blatchf. 315, 1869 U.S. App. LEXIS 1193, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bixby-v-janssen-circtsdny-1869.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack