National Exchange Bank v. Galvin

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

National Exchange Bank v. Galvin

37 A. 811, 20 R.I. 159, 1897 R.I. LEXIS 77

CourtSupreme Court of Rhode Island

DecidedJune 25, 1897

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 37 A. 811 (National Exchange Bank v. Galvin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Rhode Island primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

National Exchange Bank v. Galvin, 37 A. 811, 20 R.I. 159, 1897 R.I. LEXIS 77 (R.I. 1897).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The notes in suit were made and declared on as original promises by Daniel Galvin, the defendant’s intestate, jointly with the Newport Laundry Co. At the trial in the Common Pleas Division the defendant moved that Patrick Horgan be summoned in as a codefendant, on the ground that the Newport Laundry Co. was a copartnership, of which he and Daniel Galvin were members. The court denied the motion.

Though the statute (Gen. Laws R. I. cap. 233, § 21) provides that the court may on motion of a defendant order other parties to the contract to be made defendants, we think that this implies a judicial'and not an absolute discretion, and hence that it is reviewable. The statute was evidently intended to give a right to the defendant in a proper case. In the present case the representative of Daniel Galvin cannot be charged for a partnership debt on which he was jointly liable till the plaintiff shall have first exhausted the partnership estate. Gen. Laws R. I. cap. 233, § 17. ■ In this state of facts, Horgan, as surviving partner, is primarily liable. We think, therefore, that- the motion should have been granted.

*160 William P. Sheffield, Jr., for plaintiff. Charles Acton Ives, for defendant.

Defendant’s petition for a new trial granted, and case remitted to the Common Pleas Division for further proceedings.

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

Per Curiam.

The notes in suit were made and declared on as original promises by Daniel Galvin, the defendant’s intestate, jointly with the Newport Laundry Co. At the trial in the Common Pleas Division the defendant moved that Patrick Horgan be summoned in as a codefendant, on the ground that the Newport Laundry Co. was a copartnership, of which he and Daniel Galvin were members. The court denied the motion.

Though the statute (Gen. Laws R. I. cap. 233, § 21) provides that the court may on motion of a defendant order other parties to the contract to be made defendants, we think that this implies a judicial'and not an absolute discretion, and hence that it is reviewable. The statute was evidently intended to give a right to the defendant in a proper case. In the present case the representative of Daniel Galvin cannot be charged for a partnership debt on which he was jointly liable till the plaintiff shall have first exhausted the partnership estate. Gen. Laws R. I. cap. 233, § 17. ■ In this state of facts, Horgan, as surviving partner, is primarily liable. We think, therefore, that- the motion should have been granted.

*160 William P. Sheffield, Jr., for plaintiff. Charles Acton Ives, for defendant.

Defendant’s petition for a new trial granted, and case remitted to the Common Pleas Division for further proceedings.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 A. 811, 20 R.I. 159, 1897 R.I. LEXIS 77, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/national-exchange-bank-v-galvin-ri-1897.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack