Johnson v. First National Bank
Opinion
In the summons the plaintiffs are described as A. S. Johnston, W. D. Nesbitt, and W. D. Carr, partners as Johnston, Nesbitt & Co., and the coinplaint [379] follows the summons. This made the suit one by the plaintiffs as individuals, and not one in the name of the partnership; the word:-; “'partners as Johnston, Nesbitt & Co.” being merely deseriptio personae. — Baldridge v. Eason, 99 Ala. 516, 13 South. 74 ; Compton v. Smith, 120 Ala. 233, 25 South. 300 ; Bolling v. Speller, 96 Ala. 269 ; 11 South. 300. Moreover the suit could not have properly been brought in the name of the partnership.— Moore v. Burns, 60 Ala. 269 ; Lanford v. Patton, 44 Ala. 584.
The certificate of the clerk shows the appeal was taken by a partnership, and not by the plaintiffs, as designated in the summons and complaint. It follows that we cannot entertain the appeal, and it must he dismissed. Appeal disndssed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
40 So. 78 (Johnson v. First National Bank) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.