Case ID: dc_2/html/0171-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "The Court", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Elisha Riggs v. William Stewart.
    If one of three joint defendants pay the whole debt upon a joint execution for a debt contracted by them jointly, in a transaction in which they were partners, he cannot, at law, recover from the other partners their respective proportions of the whole debt which he has thus paid.
    Assumpsit for money paid by the plaintiff for the use of the defendant.
    The plaintiff and defendant* and C. J. Nourse had made a joint purchase of salt, upon which a joint judgment had been recovered against them by one Lindsay. (See the case of Riggs v. Lindsay, in the Supreme Court, U. S., 7 Cranch, 500.) Upon a joint ca. sa. upon that judgment, the plaintiff Biggs was taken, and paid the whole amount of the judgment, and brought this action against the defendant Stewart, for his proportion of that amount.
    The defendant, having given evidence to the jury to show that the judgment was upon a joint transaction in which all the defendants were interested as partners, prayed the Court to instruct the jury, that if they should be of opinion, from the evidence, that the claim which the plaintiff seeks to recover in this action, arose out of a transaction in which the plaintiff and defendant were, with others, concerned as partners, then this action at law cannot be sustained against the défendaní.
    
      
      Mr. Swann and Mr. Taney, for the defendant,
    cited Chitty on Pleadings, 21; Williamson v. Frazier, 4 Esp. Rep. 182; Smith v. Barrow, 2 T. R. 476; Hesheth v. Blanchard, 4 East, 144; Ozeas v. Johnson, 1 Binney, 191 ; 1 Com. on Contracts, 294, 295, 296; Wright v. Hunter, 1 East, 20; Merryweaiher v. Nixan, 8 T. R. 186.
    
      Mr. Marbury, Mr. Law, and Mr. Jones, for the plaintiff,
    cited Watson on Part. 405; Merryweaiher v. Nixan, 8 T. R. 186; 1 Com. on Cont. 327; Wright v. Hunter, 1 East, 20; 2 Com. on Cont. 186; Van Ness v. Forrest, 8 Cranch, 30; Foster v. Allenson, 2 T. R. 479; Com. on Cont. 329; Osborne v. Harper, 5 East, 225; Petrie v. Hannay, 3 T. R. 418; Aubert v. Maze, 2 B. & P. 371; Tealcney v. Reynow, 4 Burr. 2069;' Mitchell v. Cockburne, 2 H. Bl. 379.
   The Court

(Morsell, J., not sitting,)

gave the instruction as prayed, and the plaintiff took a bill of exceptions, but never prosecuted a writ of error.