Hatch v. Wood
This text of 43 N.H. 633 (Hatch v. Wood) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Hampshire primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
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]*636the 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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
43 N.H. 633, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hatch-v-wood-nh-1862.