Mowatt v. Howland

3 Day 353
Supreme Court of Connecticut·Decided June 15, 1809·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

By THE Court.

Whether Joseph Howland, jun. was authorized to make the endorsement by the name and firm of Joseph Howland U Co. depends upon the question, whether there had been reasonable notice of the dissolution of the partnership previous to making the endorsement. When the facts, which are supposed to constitute notice, are once ascertained, it is altogether a question of law, whether the notice was reasonable, or not; and, in such case, there is nothing to be left to the jury.

The facts agreed to, on the statement in this case, in the' opinion of the court, do constitute reasonable notice to every person not a correspondent of the company. The direction of the superior court was correct; , and, therefore, this court do not advise a new trial.

New trial not to be granted.

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

Mowatt v. Howland, 3 Day 353 (Colo. 1809).

3 Day 353 (Mowatt v. Howland) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Bromley v. Elliot
38 N.H. 287 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1859)
National Bank v. Norton
1 Hill & Den. 572 (New York Supreme Court, 1841)
Shurlds v. Tilson
22 F. Cas. 56 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Illinois, 1841)
Shaffer v. Snyder
7 Serg. & Rawle 503 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1822)