The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1853-04-16
Superior Court-Part Second.
Before Hon. Judge Duer.


Bu,riu Bets and Benjamin. r. Bets us John A. Fam.
naer, Caleb D. Gideysleee and Peter w. Longlcy-The
plaintiffs in this suit were owners Of the steamboat
defendants under the firm signature Of John Fammer
Co., bearing date September TO- 1851, for the use of
York to Flammersburg and stratonport Flushing
L. l., and back The balance due the charter party
proved at the of 5000 and after proving the
execution in the firm of the defendants and that
the firm signature was made with intent 70 bind the firm
joint liability, and that the paper was made to John A.
f1ammer, and signed John A. Fammer l. Co. The plain
tins contend p,t Sy their counsel Messrs VIM Evsrs
ter party the deen iants had entered into general part
nershp for the purpose Of selling tract Of land in
Isand that they entered into an agreement
with the defsndasts, through John A Hammer, for
months the steamboat Durant to ply for that period
from Peck slip to Flushing and back again. to stop
in passengers and freight the steamboat be fitted up
and kept in repair, supplied with sufficient number Of
hands during the term the cost of plaintiffs that de-
run $40 and one half the Collectors wages and
further that profits were to be realized the plain
ants to be allowed to have bar board and pay all
expenses OF docksge at Stratonport and Flushing and
any failure part Of the defendants to fula their
to Withdraw the steamer the charter party TO Be At an
end, and defendants to be liable to pay 81 500 the
plaintiffs within fifteen days after the Withdrawal Of the
steamer as qudated damages. The defendants Glider
rough, contend that they not parties to the said
charter party, and had connection Herewith that II
procured by Hammer his own account and for
his individual benefit and that the fact known
to the plaintiffs.
The Judge in charging the Jury, submitted to them Ger.
tain questions for their consideration the first place.
was it known to the plaintiffs either Of them before
the charter party executed that the defendant Fa
restrained, by the terms of his copartnershp
from mourning expense account of his firm with
out the written consent of his partners beyond the
of Eve hundred doarsf this restriction was known to-
the plaintiffs the charter party subsequently adopt
ed and ratified by the defendants Gilderseeve Long
ley2 If the restriction upon Hammer was unknown to
the plaintiffs and the contract not ratified by the
defendants Gderseeve and Longley then say when the
charter party was executed it the intention of the
partners either of them that it should bind the de-
PENDANTS Gdersleeve and Lengey? Was the employment
Of the boat within the scope of the partnership
it, in fact employed for the benefit Of the rm9 the
jury are satisfied that the plaintiffs knew that Hammer
had right but the contrary wds expressly forbid
by the articles OF partnership entering into any
expenses above hundred dollars and that the charter
party was thus involved in its inception and not
afterwards ratified by the defendants Gdersleeve and
LOngley then they not liable But il the opinion
of the Court governed the Jury, he should say the
poyment Of the boat within the scope and province
Of the partnership The jury returned verdict in favor
of the defendants Gderseeve and Longey but against
the defendant Flammer for $3.50 33.