Talbot v. Rechlin

City of New York Municipal Court

Talbot v. Rechlin

2 N.Y. City Ct. Rep. 420

DecidedJune 15, 1887

StatusPublished

This text of 2 N.Y. City Ct. Rep. 420 (Talbot v. Rechlin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering City of New York Municipal Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Talbot v. Rechlin, 2 N.Y. City Ct. Rep. 420 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1887).

Pincite

Opinion

McAdam, Ch. J.

The Statute of Limitations applies, unless the letters written by the defendant Griffith take the ease out of its operation. The rule is that a new promise or payment by one of two joint obligors revives the claim against the person making the promise or payment, but not against the .other (20 Hun, 254; 8 N. Y. 362; 29 Id, 146; 37 N. W. R. 379; 86 N. Y. 484). This rule is inapplicable here, because the defendants .were partners, the claim a partnership debt, and the new prom-' ise made - in the - partnership name. The plaintiffs had dealt with the defendants on the faith of their partnership relation, and there is no evidence that they had notice of the dissolution of the firm, and under the circumstances the act of Griffith was the act of his firm (Forbes v. Garfield, 32 Hun, 389). The acknowledgment was sufficient under the statute (37 Hun, 504; 73 N. Y. 189; 1 Thomp. & C. 229).

It follows that the plaintiffs are entitled to judgment for $850.55, with costs.

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

McAdam, Ch. J.

The Statute of Limitations applies, unless the letters written by the defendant Griffith take the ease out of its operation. The rule is that a new promise or payment by one of two joint obligors revives the claim against the person making the promise or payment, but not against the .other (20 Hun, 254; 8 N. Y. 362; 29 Id, 146; 37 N. W. R. 379; 86 N. Y. 484). This rule is inapplicable here, because the defendants .were partners, the claim a partnership debt, and the new prom-' ise made - in the - partnership name. The plaintiffs had dealt with the defendants on the faith of their partnership relation, and there is no evidence that they had notice of the dissolution of the firm, and under the circumstances the act of Griffith was the act of his firm (Forbes v. Garfield, 32 Hun, 389). The acknowledgment was sufficient under the statute (37 Hun, 504; 73 N. Y. 189; 1 Thomp. & C. 229).

It follows that the plaintiffs are entitled to judgment for $850.55, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 N.Y. City Ct. Rep. 420, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/talbot-v-rechlin-nynyccityct-1887.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack