Cushing v. Marston
This text of 66 Mass. 431 (Cushing v. Marston) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The contract of the defendant for board was made with the partners, who kept the lodging-house jointly ; the payment for it was therefore a debt due to both jointly. The action, therefore, could not, by law, be brought and maintained by one only, Halliday v. Doggett, 6 Pick. 359. The most which the testimony of the witness tends to establish is, that the plaintiff agreed to guarantee the firm against any loss on the joint debt thus to be contracted by the defendant for his board. There had been no settlement of the partnership accounts, in which they had treated the amount owed by the defendant for board as a separate debt due to the plaintiff. Exceptions overruled.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
66 Mass. 431, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cushing-v-marston-mass-1853.