Peters v. Davis

7 Mass. 257
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided March 15, 1811·Published·Cited by 10 cases

Opinion

By the Court,

(ahsente Parsons, C. J.) We are all of opinion that the plaintiff cannot maintain this action. Here was no such severance of the joint demand of Rawson &f Davenport, as subjects the defendant to two actions for one cause. The whole adjustment of the affairs of the copartnership was between the plaintiff and Rawson: the defendant knew nothing of it, and if he had known it, he was not bound by it. The verdict must be set aside, and the plaintiff must be called.

Plaintiff nonsuit.

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

Peters v. Davis, 7 Mass. 257 (Mass. 1811).

7 Mass. 257 (Peters v. Davis) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Poole v. Griffith
112 So. 447 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1927)
Louisville, New Albany & Chicago Railway Co. v. Hart
4 L.R.A. 549 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1889)
Logan v. Dixon
41 N.W. 713 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1889)
Sleeper v. Union Insurance
65 Me. 385 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1876)
Daby v. . Ericsson
45 N.Y. 786 (New York Court of Appeals, 1871)
Calvert v. Marlow
18 Ala. 67 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1850)
Houston v. Stanton
11 Ala. 412 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1847)
Egberts v. Wood
3 Paige Ch. 517 (New York Court of Chancery, 1831)
Murray v. Mumford
6 Cow. 441 (New York Supreme Court, 1826)
Austin v. Walsh
2 Mass. 401 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1807)