Brown v. Belches

Court of Appeals of Virginia

Brown v. Belches

1 Va. 11

DecidedApril 15, 1791

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Va. 11 (Brown v. Belches) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Virginia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Brown v. Belches, 1 Va. 11 (Va. Ct. App. 1791).

Pincite

Opinion

The President.

The objection made to the judgment, is that it could not be entered against one partner only, upon a partnership transaction.

The case of Rice v. Shute,—5 Burr. 2611, shews, that one partner may be sued alone, and that the plaintiff shall not be non-suited at the trial upon proof that there are other partners. If the defendant would take advantage of that circumstance, he must plead in abatement, and point out the other partners.

The distinction between torts and contracts is overruled, and the principle seems to be established, that the party contracted with may be sued alone.

In this case the plaintiff took out his writ against both; one could not be found, and, according to the act of assembly, the suit abated as to him.

The .defendant, who was arrested, pleads that he did not assume—The jury have found that he did— The defendant, without assigning errors or taking any exceptions, appeals from a general verdict

[13]*13Though the declaration charges, that trie defendant with another assumed, a fact which as to that other is , not tried, yet, this does not vitiate the defendants as* sump sit, which is found against him»

Judgment affirmed.

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

The President.

The objection made to the judgment, is that it could not be entered against one partner only, upon a partnership transaction.

The case of Rice v. Shute,—5 Burr. 2611, shews, that one partner may be sued alone, and that the plaintiff shall not be non-suited at the trial upon proof that there are other partners. If the defendant would take advantage of that circumstance, he must plead in abatement, and point out the other partners.

The distinction between torts and contracts is overruled, and the principle seems to be established, that the party contracted with may be sued alone.

In this case the plaintiff took out his writ against both; one could not be found, and, according to the act of assembly, the suit abated as to him.

The .defendant, who was arrested, pleads that he did not assume—The jury have found that he did— The defendant, without assigning errors or taking any exceptions, appeals from a general verdict

[13]*13Though the declaration charges, that trie defendant with another assumed, a fact which as to that other is , not tried, yet, this does not vitiate the defendants as* sump sit, which is found against him»

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Va. 11, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-v-belches-vactapp-1791.