Thomas v. Haight

New York Circuit Court

Thomas v. Haight

2 Edm. Sel. Cas. 25

DecidedSeptember 15, 1848

StatusPublished

This text of 2 Edm. Sel. Cas. 25 (Thomas v. Haight) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Circuit Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Thomas v. Haight, 2 Edm. Sel. Cas. 25 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1848).

Pincite

Opinion

Edmonds, J.,

charged the jury that F. M. H. was not a dormant partner, and therefore entitled to withdraw without notice. That if the plaintiff was a dealer with the firm of S. W. H. & Co., knowing that F. M. H. was a partner, he was entitled to actual notice of the dissolution, in default of •which F. M. H. was responsible to the plaintiff for any debt contracted in the name of the firm by the remaining partner, though after an actual dissolution. And if the jury believed that plaintiff had been such actual dealer, and had not received actual notice of the dissolution, their finding must be for him.

Verdict for plaintiff.

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

Edmonds, J.,

charged the jury that F. M. H. was not a dormant partner, and therefore entitled to withdraw without notice. That if the plaintiff was a dealer with the firm of S. W. H. & Co., knowing that F. M. H. was a partner, he was entitled to actual notice of the dissolution, in default of •which F. M. H. was responsible to the plaintiff for any debt contracted in the name of the firm by the remaining partner, though after an actual dissolution. And if the jury believed that plaintiff had been such actual dealer, and had not received actual notice of the dissolution, their finding must be for him.

Verdict for plaintiff.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 Edm. Sel. Cas. 25, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomas-v-haight-nycirct-1848.