Hatch v. Wood

43 N.H. 633
Supreme Court of New Hampshire·Decided June 15, 1862·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Bartlett, J.

A merely nominal partner need not be joined as a plaintiff, unless perhaps in certain cases of written contracts. Story Part., secs; 241-2; 1 Chit. Pl. 12; Kell v. Nainby, 10 B. & C. 20; Browne Act. 134; 2 Greenl. Ev., sec. 478; 2 Saund. Pl. & Ev. 701; Coll. Part., sec. 662; Oliver’s Prec. 73. As this is upon the ground that such a nominal partner is not in fact a party to the contract, [636] the same rule seems applicable to the defendants, and to this effect are the authorities. 1 Chit. Pl. 43; Story Part. sec. 241; 2 Sauud. Pl. & Ev. 707; Browne Act. 707. As this disposes of the only exception now insisted on by the defendant, there must be

Judgment on the verdict.

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

Hatch v. Wood, 43 N.H. 633 (N.H. 1862).

43 N.H. 633 (Hatch v. Wood) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Bashaw
785 A.2d 897 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 2001)