Durham v. Hartlett

Supreme Court of Georgia

Durham v. Hartlett

32 Ga. 22

DecidedJanuary 15, 1861

StatusPublished

This text of 32 Ga. 22 (Durham v. Hartlett) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Durham v. Hartlett, 32 Ga. 22 (Ga. 1861).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court.

Lumpkin,' J.,

delivering the opinion.

Durham & Hartlett entered into a co-partnership in a brick-yard. Durham gave his note for one-half of the 30,-000 bricks then on hand, excepting 12,000, and for one-half of the yard and the brick to be made for three years. The partnership continued eleven months, and was dissolved. Durham had, in the meantime, paid $200 on his note, and he insists that this payment covered the full amount of his liability in the $500 note. The jury, upon the testimony, found otherwise. The Court refused to grant a new trial, and we do not feel constrained to reverse his judgment.

The articles of copartnership, as well as the terms of dis[25]*25solution, are both in writing. In the latter, what each of the former partners is to do, is specified, and not a word is said about this note. Is not the presumption almost irresistible that it was to be paid ? Otherwise, why was it not given up to Durham ?

Judgment affirmed.

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

By the Court.

Lumpkin,' J.,

delivering the opinion.

Durham & Hartlett entered into a co-partnership in a brick-yard. Durham gave his note for one-half of the 30,-000 bricks then on hand, excepting 12,000, and for one-half of the yard and the brick to be made for three years. The partnership continued eleven months, and was dissolved. Durham had, in the meantime, paid $200 on his note, and he insists that this payment covered the full amount of his liability in the $500 note. The jury, upon the testimony, found otherwise. The Court refused to grant a new trial, and we do not feel constrained to reverse his judgment.

The articles of copartnership, as well as the terms of dis[25]*25solution, are both in writing. In the latter, what each of the former partners is to do, is specified, and not a word is said about this note. Is not the presumption almost irresistible that it was to be paid ? Otherwise, why was it not given up to Durham ?

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 Ga. 22, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/durham-v-hartlett-ga-1861.