Postman v. Rowan

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Postman v. Rowan

123 N.Y.S. 913

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJuly 1, 1910

StatusPublished

This text of 123 N.Y.S. 913 (Postman v. Rowan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Postman v. Rowan, 123 N.Y.S. 913 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

BIJUR, J.

On a previous appeal in this case, reported in 65 Misc. Rep. 50, 119 N. Y. Supp. 248, this court held that the only issue was whether an assignment made by one member of a firm of all the assets of the firm constituted a valid assignment by the partnership; and this court decided that, in the absence of evidence of the consent or ratification of the second partner to the assignment for the benefit of the creditors, such assignment was invalid. On the second trial there was ample evidence that the second partner consented to the assignment of all the partnership assets to the plaintiff assignee. The only contradictory evidence was hearsay, to the effect that the second partner had stated that he had not consented. The admission of this evidence was clearly error.

The judgment, therefore, must be reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event. All concur.

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

BIJUR, J.

On a previous appeal in this case, reported in 65 Misc. Rep. 50, 119 N. Y. Supp. 248, this court held that the only issue was whether an assignment made by one member of a firm of all the assets of the firm constituted a valid assignment by the partnership; and this court decided that, in the absence of evidence of the consent or ratification of the second partner to the assignment for the benefit of the creditors, such assignment was invalid. On the second trial there was ample evidence that the second partner consented to the assignment of all the partnership assets to the plaintiff assignee. The only contradictory evidence was hearsay, to the effect that the second partner had stated that he had not consented. The admission of this evidence was clearly error.

The judgment, therefore, must be reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

123 N.Y.S. 913, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/postman-v-rowan-nyappterm-1910.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack