The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1854-03-14
Marine Court.
Before Judge Phillips.

QUESTION AS TO JOINT LIABILITY.
relre ofhers-This action brought to the
services rendered by the plaintiff In making the
survey Of railroad route from Hoboken to the Niagara
river 1t appeared that Edward W. Serre civil engineer
this adventure and that the defendants including Ser
subscribe in eight equal par defay the necessary
penses incurredeach individual firm agreeing to pay
thereof and with the understanding that Ser
re should act the experimenting engineer Under this
arrangement Serre employed engineers and other nece
sary employees and, in the prosecution of the work,
@ 'ns o. % so.
against the defendants, joint Debtors to recover
the value of his services The defendants resist the
Judge Phillips said the compact between the defen-
dants by which they Joined in the enterprise ID simply
and clearly stated by the defendant wtness-Serrel
They, individuals copartnershp firms agreed each
to pay oneeighth Of the expenses. This them il the
contract made between themselves which binds them to
element in their agreement which Axes them as joint
contractors or coparners No profits arose or were to
arise from the enterprise No association Of interest
line; it simply agreement to pay an assessment
of oneeghth Of the cost of the survey In agreements
between general copartners each partner to
become responsible for the whole debt of the rm this
is the very essence Of the contract between the mem
bers Of the firm and also with those who deal with them
In this case agreement is made not between the
persons who Join in the enterprise but with serre
himself one of the contributors The agreement each
defendant made with serrell was, smply-"I win pay
You 90 and make the survey pay the expenses and
win subscribe my equal eighth of the cost" 1t Is
said by the Plaintiff that although there may be
tract Of partnership between the defendants yet 1t Is to
be deemed joint adventure and Joint liability, far
third parties concerned But the agreement by
which the defendants liable f the position assumed
by the plaintiff be correc be enlarged In its condition.
construction different from that intended by the
contracting parties given to II regards other par
tess Certainly not unless they become like by acts and
declarations outside Of sbrogatng the original COM
pact: There is nothing in this exhibiting such
state Of facts The case presented by the testimony
shows that Selrell himself engineer, conceived the
idea of this railroad from Hoboken the Hudson to the
Niagara river and that upon his solicitation the defend
ants each or by his rm agreed to pay to him. Serrel
oneeighth Of the expense Of the survey cannot hnd
particle Of testimony going to show that each agreed to
become liable for the whole expense in any contingency
And the theory Of the plaintiff be true such the
contract between them for II II Joint adventure
copartnershp agreement such would have been the ef
feet II does NOT appear that the defendants
known to each other in the transaction and II 10 almost
incredible to suppose that Of business habits and
perience such the defendants known TO possess
would engage in copartnershp, any other transac
ton Is Joint contractors without knowing the pecuniary
responsibility Of their confederaes Examining this mat
ter in every aspect the contract between the parties
SIMPLY an agreement, separately and without reference
to each other to Serre pro rata share Of the
pcnses Of the enterprise In way consider II
joint liability, and therefore dismiss the complaint
with costs to the defendants.