Case ID: stew_2/html/0224-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "By JUDGEPERRY.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Smith v. Davis et al.
    
    ía an action brought by copartners as payees, on paper made to them' by their firm name, no proof of the copartnership is necessary. If the proper parties have not brought the action, it is matter of defence.
    This case was tried at the same time as the last, and in the same manner. The declaration, which was in assumpsit, averred that P. Davis,’ E. Faxer and John Kirby, were copartners; and the only proof produced was a note made by Smith to P. Davis & Co. On the demurrer of the defendant below to the plaintiff’s evidence, judgment was given for the plaintiffs, who are appellees in this Court.
    Goldthwaite, argued for the appellant,
    that when a firm sue as payees or as indorsees, by virtue of any other than a blank indorsement, under the general issue, they are bound to prove their identity and copartnership. 
    
    Bugbee for the appellees.
    
      
       GowonPart. stlrkfes Ev. 250.1 Chittys Peakes B\?" 2i4. ‘
    
   By JUDGEPERRY.

This case depends upon the same principles as the last. The judgment must therefore be affirmed.