Murray v. Bogert & Kneeland

14 Johns. 318
New York Supreme Court·Decided August 15, 1817·Published·Cited by 17 cases

Opinion

Thompson, Ch. J.,

delivered the opinion of the court. The motion to set aside the nonsuit must be denied. There is no principle that can be assumed, under the facts in the case, which will sustain the action. It cannot be supported on the princi[322] pie of contribution. The defendants were not parties to the judgment which Forbes recovered against the plaintiff and others ; nor could they have been made parties. The contract upon which Forbes recovered that judgment was made by him, with Murray, Kane, Mumford, & Mansfield. But whether the defendants could have been connected with them in that suit or not is immaterial as it respects the question of contribution. They were not made parties, nor did the defendants in that suit plead in abatement, that they ought to have been made parties. That judgment, therefore, shows no privity, or joint responsibility between the defendants in that judgment and the defendants in this suit; nor do the facts in this case make out a partnership. Admitting that the transaction as between Murray, Kane, Mumford &? Mansfield, was a partnership concern, Mansfield could not, by selling out a portion of interest to Bogert 8c Kneeland, make them partners against the will and consent of the other parties. This would be a very dangerous principle to admit into the doctrine of partnership.

Admitting, however, that the defendants were, by the purchase made from Mansfield, constituted partners in the transaction, another insuperable difficulty arises against maintaining the action at law ; it is a principle too well settled to be shaken, that partners cannot sue each other at common law. There is nothing-in the case showing a settlement of the partnership accounts, and balance struck, and a promise by the defendants to pay, so as to maintain the action on that ground. In whatever point of view, therefore, the case is considered, the plaintiff was properly nonsuited, and the present motion must be denied.

Motion denied(a.)

Footnotes

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

Murray v. Bogert & Kneeland, 14 Johns. 318 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1817).

14 Johns. 318 (Murray v. Bogert & Kneeland) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Dupuis v. Becnel Co.
535 So. 2d 375 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1988)
Weiss v. Weiss
75 Misc. 644 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1912)
Gibbs's Estate
27 A. 383 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1893)
Lobenthal v. Keller
2 N.Y. City Ct. Rep. 304 (City of New York Municipal Court, 1886)
Setzer v. Beale
19 W. Va. 274 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1882)
Chandler v. Sherman
16 Fla. 99 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1877)
Williams v. Gulick
6 Haw. 162 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 1875)
Bouton v. Bouton
40 How. Pr. 217 (New York Supreme Court, 1870)
Russell v. Grimes
46 Mo. 410 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1870)
Cummings v. . Morris
25 N.Y. 625 (New York Court of Appeals, 1862)
Harris v. Harris
39 N.H. 45 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1859)
Rathbone v. Stocking
2 Barb. 135 (New York Supreme Court, 1848)
Putnam v. Wise
1 Hill & Den. 234 (New York Supreme Court, 1841)
Burley & Harris v. Harris
8 N.H. 233 (Superior Court of New Hampshire, 1836)
Morrison v. Blodgett
8 N.H. 238 (Superior Court of New Hampshire, 1836)
Henderson v. McDuffee
5 N.H. 38 (Superior Court of New Hampshire, 1829)