New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1867-12-11
IMPORTANT DECISION IL THE UNITED STATES
SUPREME COURT


Mr. Drury w. Bowman, plaintiff in error, took
action in the United states supreme Court against Jacob
Thompson, Secretary OF Interior uuder james Bu
chauau TO recover 10 per cent on s2OOO which it Is al
legged Thompson and others agreed pay him for procur
ing purchaser for lands in Mississippi. Nit Bowman
having introduced Messrs. Leroy NJ Wiley and VIM q.
Lane tile gentlemen VINO did, after some parlcy, actually
purchase the lands. Thompson AMI his partners pleaded
that they we're not 10 pay Bowman tho per cenum
less the land was purchased a certain sum per acre,
nnd that they were not sold for that sum- nor through
BOwnall's Influence Ia any manner whatever On the
first trial the verdict iOT the defendants. new trial
granted. and before came on june 1859, Jacob
TIOmpsOn, the principal plaiunn In error, moved
for leave 10 hle separate pea OF hOnAsSuhpsh,
in lands with his codcfendauts. In support VI
this motion ie made affidavit That lac LETT the state OF
Mississippi IN March, 1857, aud aitorwad resided Ia the
CITY Washington; that he was never served with pro
cess and heard OF the suit until July 1862 when lie
temporary visit To MlssSsippi that lac never
authorized any attorney appear for MIN In the suit lie
also aycrred that his cOdrlcnain were merely tenants
In common of the lands Ihis motOn was resisted, ahu
the application WAS subsequently denied The second
trial resulted IN favor Bowman Tor he amount claimed
The Court charged the jury that they were To decide
according 10 the prcpoudcaiicc OF the evidence and
need he satisfied beyond reasonable DOUBT as 10 he
existence terms Of tue contract alleged by pahtH'
that each partner within the scope Ot the partnership IL
the uge " all the partners; that cach partner may a'l
and employ agents 10 SELL the partnership property ana
bargain, bcnalf 81 the n. tor commission; tMt to
verdict must DO for the Whoio ahouht ci"'ou' W
nothing. .
10 this charge OF the Court and to the ruling In respect
TO the admission OF certain evidence, exception Was
lkru and the ca,e comes here thereon. Ihe most in-
pUrtuut the exceptions and tho OHe chiefly fceu on
Ur reversal OF The dgmcnt below, ~ tGat tlatb6 ~
the admission Of the evidence OF 70 certain WitesS' 0ne
Anderson, called by the plaintiff below TO prove that
after the lands belonging TO tue dcledds ia respect Oh
which the partnership existed and Ia respect To when
claimed, had boon sOld 10
wiley. Powell OF the defendants admitted To Tue
plaintiff that he POWciD had asreeui HW 10 ue S'e, 10
pay tie plaintiff the amount claimed. ~ hc womb ma OF
Introduce purchaser Tor the Lands Inc Court "Nctluleu
tie objections and allowed the testimony "uchlS the
admissions Powell subsequent 10 tho Gale, 40 10 INC
fT 9uitfiis m error contend In regard to this
10 81 ff.I
hereinafter Uf the alleged partnership tue sale OF thOse
lands worked complete termination Of IT. p"itner-
ship may expire. frst 10y h5 eAtleuOn 81 Inc thlug
winch cstturcd tho solo snJectmtier Of tine partner
spi" SECOND, b. the completion Or accomplishment OF
formed" An example Of thc irs sort Womb DC case
wncle " two pcrsOus mot bcihS Otherwise p1ItneisJ
should iuuty buy - ship to be employed by then Tor
their mutual prone ~ partners, bd Inc sap shouu hcI
ward De totally lost or destroyed That would constitute
termination the partnership, not merely uccUfu"g 10
law but d, i,n exact exposition VI the active ntcndment
ANA understanding OF tne parties totOry On frther-
ine pr,po Is low settled by the adjudication Of this
Court well as 81 the highest tOutis VI INST Oi INC
commercial states Of the UuiOn, ihat thc athuON'uS
meats. declarations, or Stateuctts 81 pdfhcr' mde
aer dissolution OF the cUpirthcoh respecting the
rcal or supposed transactions, dulles Or ODgaliOs O
the partnership during is COAtinincc are not bnlS
as evidence Otherwise upon the Otner partners WHO
have not ns,cuicd thereto such declarations, acts ana
Owl.UWHcls have no greater onrct than those O
any other agent OF the partnership made or done tcr
Ine charge Of tue Court. therefore, manfesty err
IL was pudealcd upon thc th,OiJ U INC cNs
ruce OF partnership between the defendants Ia respect
10 Tue hand n question. theory which hIus no support
ia the evidence contained u this ICCUrd. Inc lLthtH
gave NO testimony proving tending 10 prove taat the
defendants were partners In the ownership OF the ahd
aud yet tle Court, without evidence Hd against eNl
dri,c, adopfcd tins hypothesis OF partnership relation
uti placed the c.so before the Jury simply as one To
vLItu the law OF partnership WAS apphCHDc oulCy lhls
.,r ,n,,ud be- corrected 10y the granting ~ new trial
The plaintiff mad cusc unlcss inc defendants were
u.rtnt-, nld unless tho Hlcg admissions Of Powell.
nor fbn .llr were admissible against the
other defendants There WAS no such priority between
trtu on may other OF that relationship, as would
under the admissions OF one. evidence against tire oilers
Thc defendant ma error replies that POwcIS admissions
u ia respect To un auttccdtut defendant ana nc Oclhs
pty defendant below. there WAS nO law Ot Mississippi
IN which Li, testimony could bu uado available 10 iho
puuun below aud necessity, thtrrlOut lhut MS
declarations b3 shown COlHcraiy Tie charge OF inc
Cont 40 10 the pcp0udC OF evidence was sLsldheu
by the uuycrful ruc iu The Ciyll Courts .
ns cause hal INK boon the docket Tor some years IL
4, di.posc, the gual status Of the parties, no
au,slon being made ~ Sir. TuOmpSOns standing IN
court.