New-York daily tribune., 1854-09-06
SUPREME CoUKT-srrciAL TERM.

PARTNERSHIP ADVENTURE IN COTTON.
Robert levin survivor Of JOngthsn Ogden Co Thomas
]. Stewart and william 2. Wright
ROOSEVELT J.-This suit was commenced in the
late Court of ChGDcery, in August l, 1874. Ii was
brought TO trial without jury in this Court on the
peadings and proofs. It's object, according TO the
praIer of the BILL 70 compel the defendants, who
posed the late firm of Stewart IL Wright, 10 bear
ope-haf of the lose of cotton adventure To Liver
pool alleged TO have been entered into on the joint
account OF the plaintiffs and defendants. On the 10th
of March, ls44, the late firm OF Jonathan Ogden n
Co. composed OF Ogden and Levin, purchased Tor
shipment 2s5 bales OF cotton al Sc per pound, max
ing an aggregate price Of Ss,OsO So Inc DEFENDANTS
who yer, cotton oealeIs well cotton brokers, near
ing of the intended adventure, requested II Is alleged
10 be let in, and admitted to An equal JOINT IN
terest thus creating particular partnership with al
the rights and liabilities, lar as that single Shipment
wus concerned, incident TO partnership transactions
The adyt nture it sppears instead of profit resulted
In loss OF IS ~; the whole of which the defendants
have left Messrs. Ogden X Co. to bear; one OF the
defendants Wright, who, however is insovent,l ad-
hitting his liability; the other Siewart Insisting that
Wright had no authority TO bind the firm OF Stewart
& Wright in any such adventure, and that he stew
artl never consented 10 take interest IN IT, other
wise than condtonGly and upon the inducement Of
" false representations
After iewlng at Ient n the lacls IN tne case inc
Judge eays
For Or alter clearness will state my conclusions IN
the form of distinct and separate propositions; l. That
Stewart Wright did, in act and wlihoui iase OF
fraudulent iDduc6m6Dt, agree 10 OecOme Join"; h-
tsrssted a. partners in the shipment IN question. q
That such contracts Of partnership although the sub
ieet of adventure may be over go IN Vaiue' are
legally binding whether reduced to wiring or not D.
That If within the Statute Of Frauds, they are also
within It's exception validating the bargain tns
"buyer shall accept and receive part of sncn go0ds'
4 That the seller in such case, beng himself also
Joint buyer his acceptance, which Il necessary IN
cidept Of the contract, Is the acceptance oi ootn
3 That at all events the contract IN tins case having
be,n made while the article still in Miller na1a
his delivery Of the cotton to the captain on ooAfu
the Sterling and its acceptance by the latter on oy
hall Of the shippers, in legal effect the ac. Oh a
the partners by their lawfully authorIed asenIs ~
taniamount in all respects to receipt ana acoeP
- ance OF the goods by the prinopss-thus, q :.
necessary consequence and by the very terms oi 'e
statute, superseding the requirement. o. a note ~
memorandum in writing subscribed by the .,
and rendering the contract binding upon them WIZ
out that usually indispensable and always advsa9le
foImaliy As the defendants have released .hs 40
fepdant Wright no decree can be made against NM
But that release since the act Of April lsJs canoo
impair the plaintiffs remedies-n against the o1aeI
Joint deb or-nor the right Of the latter aiter
the claim to call the discharged partner iof us
rateabls portion. Judgment must, therefore, DC en
tered for the plaintiffs sgsinst the defendant SteS'
for the es7s -, with interest snd costs