Woodward v. Sutton

District of Columbia

Woodward v. Sutton

1 D.C. 351

CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia

DecidedNovember 15, 1806

StatusPublished

This text of 1 D.C. 351 (Woodward v. Sutton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Woodward v. Sutton, 1 D.C. 351 (D.D.C. 1806).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

As the only evidence of the partnership must be-either the declarations or the acts of the plaintiffs themselves, and as each of the plaintiffs has come into Court, and averred upon the record (by the allegation in the declaration) that he is one of the partners, trading under the firm of Woodward & Company, no further evidence of that fact can be required.

The Court in the case of Tibbs et al. v. Parrott, gave a naked opinion, that the allegation in the declaration must be proved, but did not say what would be sufficient primá facie evidence of the fact.

The defendants took a Bill of Exceptions.

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

Per Curiam.

As the only evidence of the partnership must be-either the declarations or the acts of the plaintiffs themselves, and as each of the plaintiffs has come into Court, and averred upon the record (by the allegation in the declaration) that he is one of the partners, trading under the firm of Woodward & Company, no further evidence of that fact can be required.

The Court in the case of Tibbs et al. v. Parrott, gave a naked opinion, that the allegation in the declaration must be proved, but did not say what would be sufficient primá facie evidence of the fact.

The defendants took a Bill of Exceptions.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 D.C. 351, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/woodward-v-sutton-dcd-1806.