Button v. Hampson

Ohio Supreme Court

Button v. Hampson

1 Wright 93, 1 Ohio Ch. 93

DecidedSeptember 15, 1832

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Wright 93 (Button v. Hampson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Button v. Hampson, 1 Wright 93, 1 Ohio Ch. 93 (Ohio 1832).

Pincite

Opinion

WRIGHT, J.

The obligation declared upon was executed by one of three partners, in the partnership name. Such instrument obliges only the person who signs and seals it — it is his act and deed, and not that of his co-partners. It is suggested that the allegation, sealed with their seal, is to be understood as charging that the instrument was sealed by each individual using a common seal. The rule is to construe pleadings most strongly against the pleader To subject this declaration to that rule, would make the allegation, that the seal was a common, not an individual seal. Co-partners, unless incorporated, can have no common seal. This instrument is not the joint instrument of the defendants; but only that of the co-partner who signed and sealed it. A case might exist where the individual seal of one of several obligers was .used by each, which would be good against each, because when so used, it is the seal of each, but tha,t is not this case; 1 Black. R. 103. The writ of error is refused, (See infra, p. 118.)

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

WRIGHT, J.

The obligation declared upon was executed by one of three partners, in the partnership name. Such instrument obliges only the person who signs and seals it — it is his act and deed, and not that of his co-partners. It is suggested that the allegation, sealed with their seal, is to be understood as charging that the instrument was sealed by each individual using a common seal. The rule is to construe pleadings most strongly against the pleader To subject this declaration to that rule, would make the allegation, that the seal was a common, not an individual seal. Co-partners, unless incorporated, can have no common seal. This instrument is not the joint instrument of the defendants; but only that of the co-partner who signed and sealed it. A case might exist where the individual seal of one of several obligers was .used by each, which would be good against each, because when so used, it is the seal of each, but tha,t is not this case; 1 Black. R. 103. The writ of error is refused, (See infra, p. 118.)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Wright 93, 1 Ohio Ch. 93, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/button-v-hampson-ohio-1832.