Case ID: cole-cai-cas_1/html/0226-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The President and Directors of the Manhattan Company v. Ledyard & Ledyard.
    
    THIS case case was submitted without argument. Radcliff, Justice, now delivered the opinion of the court. . .
   This is an action by the plaintiffs, as indorsees of a promissory note made by Brown, Talbot if Co. to the defendants, for 488 dollars' and 17 cents, and indorsed by them to the plaintiffs.

The declaration avers, that James Brown, William Talbot, and John Gooderé, acting wider the firm of Brown, Talbot if Co. made the'note in question, the proper name and firm of Brown Talbot if Co. being thereunto subscribed; and that the defendants being partners, under the firm oí Austin Ledyard if Co. indorsed the said note in writing, the proper name and style of the said firm of Austin Ledyard if Co. being thereuntp subscribed. The other parts of the declaration are in the usual form.

The partnerships of the makers and indorsees of the note, and the making and indorsing of the same, as above set forth, are admitted.

The evidence on the trial was, that Brown, one of the makers, subscribed the note by the partnership firm, and that Austin Leck/ard, one of the firm of ? Austin Ledyard & Co. indorsed the same with the name of that firm. The question submitted by the parties is, whether the evidence supports the averments contained in the declaration.

We have no doubt that the averments were sufficiently supported by this evidence. It was not necessary to set forth, that one of the partners of each of the firms, made and indorsed the note in the name or style of the respective partnerships. Although made and indorsed by one of the partners of each house, the legal effect was the same, and it is in all cases sufficient to set forth a writing according to its legal effect or operation. We are,'therefore, of opin - ion, that the plaintiffs are entitled to judgment.