Case ID: misc_7/html/0256-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Ehrlich, Ch. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Fred. Adee, Respondent, v. Moses R. Crow, Appellant.
    (City Court of New York—General Term,
    February, 1894.)
    In an action by the transferee of a promissory note against the maker, the fact that the plaintiff does business under a firm name in which the words “ & Co.,” are used, when there is in fact no partner, is unavailable as a defense.
    Appeal from judgment entered on verdict in favor of plaintiff.
    
      Albertus Perry, for appellant.
    
      Stephen M. Yeamcm, for respondent.
   Ehrlich, Ch. J.

The action is on a promissory note made by the defendant to the order of one John Tilley, and by him delivered to the plaintiff.

The sole ground urged against the verdict is that the plaintiff did business under the name and style of Fred. Adee & Co.,” without having a partner.

The defense was not pleaded, and the plaintiff was not called upon to prove that he had secured the right to use the firm name under existing statutes.

But aside from this, the defense was unavailable against the note in suit. Gay v. Seibold, 97 N. Y. 475.

The appeal is destitute of merit and the judgment must be affirmed, with costs.

Van Wyck and Fitzsimons, JJ., concur,

Judgment affirmed, with costs.