Bulkley & Claflin v. Dingman

New York Supreme Court

Bulkley & Claflin v. Dingman

11 Barb. 289, 1851 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 46

DecidedJune 14, 1851

StatusPublished

This text of 11 Barb. 289 (Bulkley & Claflin v. Dingman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bulkley & Claflin v. Dingman, 11 Barb. 289, 1851 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 46 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1851).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court,

Mitchell, J.

On the 4th of December, 1846, Dingman, Bodine and Martino entered into a special partnership, to continue for three years, in which Martino was the special, and the other two the general partners, and the business was conducted in the name of Dingman & Bodine. On the 26th of February, 1847, they agreed that Dingman should withdraw, [293]*293and Bodine and Martino should carry on the business, but that it was advisable not to dissolve the former partnership, until after the payment of certain notes given by Dingman & Bodine; and in the mean time Dingman should allow his name to be used as a partner ; that the firm should continue as theretofore, until said notes should be fully paid, when, and not until then, the firm should be publicly dissolved; and that until the public dissolution of the partnership, Dingman should allow his name to be used in purchasing goods, and giving notes therefor.

[New-York General Term, June 14, 1851.

Edmonds, Edwards and Mitchell, Justices.]

This last agreement, clearly, made all three of the parties partners as to third persons, until the notes alluded to should be paid: these notes were not paid, and the two notes on which this action is brought were given in the name of Dingman & Bodine, for goods bought for the new firm. The referee was therefore right in finding for the plaintiffs; and his report should be confirmed with costs.

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

By the Court,

Mitchell, J.

On the 4th of December, 1846, Dingman, Bodine and Martino entered into a special partnership, to continue for three years, in which Martino was the special, and the other two the general partners, and the business was conducted in the name of Dingman & Bodine. On the 26th of February, 1847, they agreed that Dingman should withdraw, [293]*293and Bodine and Martino should carry on the business, but that it was advisable not to dissolve the former partnership, until after the payment of certain notes given by Dingman & Bodine; and in the mean time Dingman should allow his name to be used as a partner ; that the firm should continue as theretofore, until said notes should be fully paid, when, and not until then, the firm should be publicly dissolved; and that until the public dissolution of the partnership, Dingman should allow his name to be used in purchasing goods, and giving notes therefor.

[New-York General Term, June 14, 1851.

Edmonds, Edwards and Mitchell, Justices.]

This last agreement, clearly, made all three of the parties partners as to third persons, until the notes alluded to should be paid: these notes were not paid, and the two notes on which this action is brought were given in the name of Dingman & Bodine, for goods bought for the new firm. The referee was therefore right in finding for the plaintiffs; and his report should be confirmed with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 Barb. 289, 1851 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 46, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bulkley-claflin-v-dingman-nysupct-1851.