Case ID: cow_7/html/0416-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Curia.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

*Lansing against M’Killup.
    UTICA,
    August, 1827.
    Where two attornies are in partnership, *?no. the name of oí papers r ^eth°“ he be in his office or abroad on business.
    D. Russell, for the defendant,
    moved to set aside the . . _ _ . default for not pleading, for irregularity. U. li. Allen, Esq., was named as the attorney on record for the defendant, with whom Mr. E. was a partner as attorney; but the business of the partnership was done in the name of Mr. A. The declaration was served on Mr. E. in his absence on business from his office. On this service the default was founded.
    
      H. P. Hunt, contra.
   Curia.

The service was regular on Mr. Russell. Though Mr. Allen alone is named, they are, in effect, both of them attorneys in the cause. It is E. & A. acting under the firm of A.; and their rights and liabilities are the same as if both names appeared.

Motion denied.