Case ID: va_20/html/0694-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "By the Court,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Pate v. Bacon & Co.
    Decided, Nov. 18th, 1818.
    i. Partnership — Suit in Firm Name — Effect of Verdict. — A declaration in behalf of a mercantile company, by the name of the firm, (without mentioning the names of the partners,) is good after a verdict for the plaintiffs upon the general issue. See Murdock & Others v. Herndon’s executors, 4 H. & M. 200; Scott & Co. v. Dunlop, Pollock & Co. 2 Munf. 349; Totty’s executor v. Donald & Co. 4 Munf. 430.
    In assumpsit brought by Edmund P. Bacon & Co., in the County Court of Bote-tourt, against John Pate, the Declaration did not state the names of the partners composing the firm of Edmund P. Bacon & Company. The defendant pleaded non as-sumpsit, whereupon a verdict *was found against him, and judgment entered, which the Superior Court affirmed. He then appealed to this Court.
    Leigh for the Appellant,
    insisted that Edmund P. Bacon & Co. could not maintain their action, without setting forth in the declaration the names of the partners. No Counsel appeared for the appellees.
    
      
      See monographic note on “Partnership” appended to Scott v. Trent, 1 Wash. 77.
    
   By the Court,

the Judgment was affirmed.