Felichy v. Hamilton

8 F. Cas. 1129, 1 Wash. C. C. 491
CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania
DecidedOctober 15, 1806
DocketCase No. 4,719
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 8 F. Cas. 1129 (Felichy v. Hamilton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Felichy v. Hamilton, 8 F. Cas. 1129, 1 Wash. C. C. 491 (circtdpa 1806).

Opinion

WASHINGTON, Circuit Justice.

To constitute a partnership, there must be a community of interest; a participation in profit and loss; and this joint interest must continue to the time of the sale, as well as to the purchase. This joint interest in the whole, is what constitutes the liability of . all for the contracts of one. If the Mackeys and Hamilton purchased on joint account, and shipped the snuff to be sold on joint account, then they are liable jointly for the advances made by the plaintiffs, on account of this joint concern. The measure of their interest in the snuff, will be the measure of their liability for the advances. If they were not jointly concerned in the sale, the conduct of the Mackeys, in making the shipment on joint account, if not done with the knowledge of Hamilton, cafinot make it a partnership transaction. But, if they were jointly concerned in the sale, then the plaintiff, corresponding only with the Mackeys, did not discharge Hamilton. The responsibility of one partner, for the contracts of another, is not solely on the ground of the credit being given to all, which it is not in the case of a dormant partner; but because, that being to share the profits, they must share the loss. Neither would the agreement of one partner with another, not to act in the business; whatever may be the effect of this as between the parties, it is nothing to third persons; neither ought the plaintiff to be affected by his having claimed only a moiety from Hamilton. For, if there was really a partnership, it was no more than a mistake of his legal rights.

Verdict for plaintiff.

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

Related

Hunt v. Oliver
118 U.S. 211 (Supreme Court, 1886)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
8 F. Cas. 1129, 1 Wash. C. C. 491, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/felichy-v-hamilton-circtdpa-1806.