Case ID: ed-smith_1/html/0358-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      By the Court. Daly, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ephraim H. Hudson v. John McKenzie and others.
    The assignment of a bond by one of two joint obligees, made in the joint name, conveys no title, unless it appear (the obligees being «partners) that the assignment relates to a matter within the scope of the partnership business.
    Appeal from the fourth district court. An attachment was issued against the defendant, McKenzie, in the superior court, for a contempt in refusing to testify before referees in a suit pending in that court between G. W. and J. C. Comstock, plaintiffs, and L. S. Comstock, defendant, and in a cross suit between the same parties. The order for the attachment provided that the said McKenzie be held to bail in the sum of one hundred dollars. The sheriff arrested and held him to bail, upon his executing a bond with sureties, conditioned that he should abide the order of the court, to be made upon the return of the attachment. Upon such return, no sufficient excuse being given for the alleged contempt, the said McKenzie was directed to attend and be examined as a witness in the said suits, and to pay the costs, disbursements, and sheriff’s fees which were provided in and which attended both the order to show cause why an attachment should not issue, and the order for the issuing of the same, and in default of such payment, the sheriff was ordered to assign the said bond to G. W. and J. C. Comstock, for prosecution. The payment was not made, and the bond was accordingly assigned to them. J. C. Comstock then executed an assignment of the bond, in the name of both, to the plaintiff, who brought his action thereon. G. W. and J. C. Comstock were copartners in business.
    The plaintiff was nonsuited in the court below, and appealed to this court.
    
      H. P. Allen, for the appellant.
    
      W. Hutchins, for the respondents.
   By the Court. Daly, J.

We are of opinion that the nonsuit was right. It was found that G. W. and J. C. Comstock were partners, hut nothing appears in the case to show that the assignment related to a matter within the scope of the partnership business, and unless that clearly appeared, the assignment of the bond by J. C. Comstock, in the partnership name, would confer no title.

Judgment of nonsuit affirmed.