Case ID: add_1/html/0291-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "President.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

ALLEGHENY COUNTY,
    September Term, 1796.
    Samuel Purviance v. William Sutherland.
    
      INDEBITATUS assumsit for goods, wares, and merchandizes, delivered to William Sutherland and William M'Donald, on a promise by both, and by each, with an averment, that neither had paid.
    Proof was made of the book-entries, and of declarations by Sutherland of a partnership between him and M'Donald, and that it has been, and is, usual with traders, to have and give interest on book-accounts, after six months.
    
      
      Woods, for the defendant,
    produced a receipt, dated at Chambersburgh, from Purviance to Sutherland, for ginseng, at a certain price, or at the Philadelphia price, if it was higher. Hence Mr. Woods inferred, that there was then no partnership. He produced also another receipt to William Sutherland and William M‘Donald, for otter skins and cash.
    
      Ross, for the plaintiff.
    We have no notice of the defalcation. The receipt is a private transaction. This suit is brought on a partnership account.
    
      Rule 21.
    
   President.

Under our rules of practice, it is the plaintiff’s fault if he have not notice of the particular payment or defalcation. If he wanted it, he ought to have demanded a specification. The receipt to Sutherland alone, seems not sufficient to contradict the evidence of partnership. But Sutherland ought to have credit for it in this case; as the suit is against himself, on a promise made by himself.

If, from the evidence of general custom of trade, you can infer, that, in this case, it was the agreement of the parties, that interest should be payable, after six months; you may find interest after that time.

The jury found for the plaintiff with interest after six months.