Hunter v. Hauptner

10 Misc. 783
CourtCity of New York Municipal Court
DecidedJuly 1, 1894
StatusPublished

This text of 10 Misc. 783 (Hunter v. Hauptner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering City of New York Municipal Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hunter v. Hauptner, 10 Misc. 783 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1894).

Opinion

Fitzsimons, J.

The complaint alleges that the defendant and his two sisters,. Bertha and Anna, were copartners in business.

The defendant’s answer denied this allegation.

It was the duty of the plaintiff at the trial to prove that issue.

There is no testimony on plaintiff’s part proving that issue in his favor; the testimony, on the contrary, clearly shows that only Bertha and Anna were copartners.

There is nothing in the appeal book showing that the defendant, Oscar Hauptner, ever held himself out to be a ■copartner of his sisters in their business.

Under such circumstances the complaint against Oscar Hauptner was properly dismissed and the judgment must be affirmed, with costs.

Ehrlich, Oh. J., and Newburger, J., concur.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
10 Misc. 783, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hunter-v-hauptner-nynyccityct-1894.