Cox v. Harris

Supreme Court of Alabama

Cox v. Harris

48 Ala. 538

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedJune 15, 1872

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 48 Ala. 538 (Cox v. Harris) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cox v. Harris, 48 Ala. 538 (Ala. 1872).

Pincite

Opinion

PETERS, J.

The judgment against the firm in its firm name alone bound only the “joint property of all the associates.” — Eev. Code, § 2538. Yet there can be no doubt that each partner is individually liable for the debts of the firm.—Waldron, Isley & Co. v. Simmons, 28 Ala. 620; Collyer on Part. (Perkins’ ed.) p. 348, et seq.; Thomas v. Hearn et al., 2 Porter. The mere reductiqn of a claim against a partnership sued in their firm name is not a payment or satisfaction of the claim. It is simply merged in the judgment, and this judgment becomes the foundation of a new suit. It is perfectly certain that a judgment is a proper cause of action in an independent suit. — 3 Bouv. Law Dic. “ Merger,” p. 175; 2 Black. Com. p. 465, (marg.); 1 Chit. Pl. pp. 111, 112, (marg.) It may be objected, that the first judgment against the firm of Herrin, Marquis & Co. is joint, and not several. This was so at common law, but it is changed by our statute. This makes “judgments” “joint' [540]*540and several.” — Revised Code, § 2539. Then this objection, had it been properly interposed in the court below, is of no avail.

Let the judgment be affirmed, with costs.

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

PETERS, J.

The judgment against the firm in its firm name alone bound only the “joint property of all the associates.” — Eev. Code, § 2538. Yet there can be no doubt that each partner is individually liable for the debts of the firm.—Waldron, Isley & Co. v. Simmons, 28 Ala. 620; Collyer on Part. (Perkins’ ed.) p. 348, et seq.; Thomas v. Hearn et al., 2 Porter. The mere reductiqn of a claim against a partnership sued in their firm name is not a payment or satisfaction of the claim. It is simply merged in the judgment, and this judgment becomes the foundation of a new suit. It is perfectly certain that a judgment is a proper cause of action in an independent suit. — 3 Bouv. Law Dic. “ Merger,” p. 175; 2 Black. Com. p. 465, (marg.); 1 Chit. Pl. pp. 111, 112, (marg.) It may be objected, that the first judgment against the firm of Herrin, Marquis & Co. is joint, and not several. This was so at common law, but it is changed by our statute. This makes “judgments” “joint' [540]*540and several.” — Revised Code, § 2539. Then this objection, had it been properly interposed in the court below, is of no avail.

Let the judgment be affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

48 Ala. 538, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cox-v-harris-ala-1872.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack