Schroder v. Pinch

85 N.W. 454, 126 Mich. 185, 1901 Mich. LEXIS 705

Opinion

Grant, J.

(after stating the facts). Two defenses; are interposed:

1. That the account sued upon was not a partnership debt-

2. That plaintiff cannot maintain the action, because he was not a party to the agreement between Pinch and Robinson when the partnership was dissolved.

We think there is testimony tending to show that it was a partnership account. That was the only question submitted to the jury, and they have settled it in favor of the plaintiff.

Defendant was liable as a member of the firm, and no-doubt could arise as to plaintiff’s right to recover as against the members of the firm. The declaration in formed him of the nature of the claim, and he could only take advantage of the nonjoinder of his partner as defendant by a plea in abatement. Story, Partn. §§ 241 (note), 455; Slutts v. Chafee, 48 Wis. 617 (4 N. W. 763); Hardy v. Cheney, 42 Vt. 417; 15 Enc. Pl. & Prac. 894.

Judgment affirmed.

The other Justices concurred.