Case ID: nys_21/html/1077-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "McGOWN, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

WEISS v. BLOCH et al.
    (City Court of New York, General Term.
    February 8, 1893.)
    Power of Partner to Bind Firm. In an action against a trading partnership for goods sold and delivered, a verdict is properly directed against both partners, where the undisputed evidence shows that the goods were purchased by one of the partners for. the firm, though his copartner denies any knowledge'of such purchase.
    Appeal from, trial term. ..
    Action by Max E." Weiss against Morris Bloch and Simon Wise, partners, for goods sold and delivered. From a judgment on a verdict directed in plaintiff’s favor, and from an order denying defendants’ motion for a new trial, defendants appeal, the' exceptions taken at the trial to be heard in the first instance at the general term. Affirmed.
    Argued before McGOWN, VAN WYCK, and FITZSIMONS, JJ.
    Goldfogle & Cohn, for appellants.
    M. A. Vosburgh, for respondent.
   McGOWN, J.

The action was commenced to recover $228 for goods alleged to have been sold and delivered to the defendants, as copartners doing business under the firm name of Bloch & Wise, on or about the 1st day of November, 1891. • "Defendant Bloch, in his answer, denied each and every allegation in the complaint, excepting that the defendants were copartners on the day alleged in the complaint,—November 1, 1891. The defendant Wise appeared, but made default in pleading. Plaintiff’s witness Joseph H. White testified to the sale and delivery of the goods in question to the defendant Simon Wise, and that the reasonable value thereof was the sum of $228. The defendant Simon Wise, called as a witness on the part óf the plaintiff, testified that he was a member of the late firm of Bloch & Wise, and that said firm purchased the goods ■ in question a few days after the partnership was formed, and that he told defendant Bloch that he (Wise) had bought the goods, and that Bloch said, “We could use the braid.” Defendant Bloch, in substance, testified that he did not purchase the-goods, but that the goods in question were put in as part of his (Wise’s) capital stock, and testified that he saw the goods in defendants’ store. No other evidence was offered' on the part of the defendants. The defendants’ counsel asked that the case be submitted to the-jury on the fact as to whether the copartnership firm purchased the goods. The court directed a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for the-amount claimed,—$228.

There was no error committed by the trial justice in directing the verdict, as there was no question of fact" to be submitted to the jury-The defendant Wise testified that he purchased the goods for the firm, and his evidence was corroborated by the witness White. Defendant Bloch testified that “there were no goods whatever purchased, to my knowledge, after Wise went in there-, by Wise or by me, from these people.” Wise, the defendant, as a partner, had full power to purchase goods for the firm of Bloch & Wise, and upon such purchase said firm became liable therefor. The judgment and order appealed from, must be affirmed, with costs to the respondent. All concur.