Edmondson v. Barrell

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia

Edmondson v. Barrell

2 D.C. 228

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia

DecidedApril 15, 1821

StatusPublished

This text of 2 D.C. 228 (Edmondson v. Barrell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Edmondson v. Barrell, 2 D.C. 228 (circtddc 1821).

Pincite

Opinion

But

the Court

overruled that objection also, and suffered the said deposition to be read in evidence, because it was plainly to be understood that the deponent was by Mm (the judge) examined and cautioned, &c.

Mr. Lear then prayed the Court to instruct the jury, that if they should be satisfied by the evidence, that the goods of the plaintiff, for the value of which this suit is brought, caijae to the hands of the said Kirkpatrick and Grivegneé, and were sold by them before the admission of the defendant into the partnership, then the contract was made with the plaintiff by Kirkpatrick and Grivegneé only, and the defendant is not chargeable in this action; and that if the defendant was not a partner of the firm at the time of. the contract, no subsequent assumpsit by him, in the name of the firm can charge him, in this action, unless an agreement be proved that he should be chargeable with the debts or contracts of the old firm;

Which instruction the Court refused to give, as prayed, but instructed the jury, that if they believe from the evidence that the goods of the plaintiff in the declaration mentioned, came to the hands of Kirkpatrick and Grivegneé, and were sold by them before the defendant, Barrell, was admitted into the partnership, then the contract was made by the plaintiff with Kirkpatrick and Gri-vegneé only, and the defendant is not chargeable in this action, unless the jury should be satisfied by the evidence that the stock of the old firm was carried into the new, and that it was agreed by the new firm with the plaintiff to pay the said debt to him; or that the money for which the said goods were sold, came to the hands of the new firm of Kirkpatrick, Grivegneé & Co., and that in consideration thereof, they promised to pay the amount thereof to the plaintiff'.

Verdict for the plaintiff, $2,556.55, with interest from the 16th of June, 1816.

The defendant took a bill of exceptions, but did not prosecute a writ of error.

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

But

the Court

overruled that objection also, and suffered the said deposition to be read in evidence, because it was plainly to be understood that the deponent was by Mm (the judge) examined and cautioned, &c.

Mr. Lear then prayed the Court to instruct the jury, that if they should be satisfied by the evidence, that the goods of the plaintiff, for the value of which this suit is brought, caijae to the hands of the said Kirkpatrick and Grivegneé, and were sold by them before the admission of the defendant into the partnership, then the contract was made with the plaintiff by Kirkpatrick and Grivegneé only, and the defendant is not chargeable in this action; and that if the defendant was not a partner of the firm at the time of. the contract, no subsequent assumpsit by him, in the name of the firm can charge him, in this action, unless an agreement be proved that he should be chargeable with the debts or contracts of the old firm;

Which instruction the Court refused to give, as prayed, but instructed the jury, that if they believe from the evidence that the goods of the plaintiff in the declaration mentioned, came to the hands of Kirkpatrick and Grivegneé, and were sold by them before the defendant, Barrell, was admitted into the partnership, then the contract was made by the plaintiff with Kirkpatrick and Gri-vegneé only, and the defendant is not chargeable in this action, unless the jury should be satisfied by the evidence that the stock of the old firm was carried into the new, and that it was agreed by the new firm with the plaintiff to pay the said debt to him; or that the money for which the said goods were sold, came to the hands of the new firm of Kirkpatrick, Grivegneé & Co., and that in consideration thereof, they promised to pay the amount thereof to the plaintiff'.

Verdict for the plaintiff, $2,556.55, with interest from the 16th of June, 1816.

The defendant took a bill of exceptions, but did not prosecute a writ of error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 D.C. 228, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/edmondson-v-barrell-circtddc-1821.