Case Name: REEVES against GOFF
Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1809-11
Citations: 3 N.J.L. 609
Docket Number: 
Parties: [*] REEVES against GOFF.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Law Reports
Volume: 3
Pages: 194–195

Head Matter:
[*] REEVES against GOFF.
ON CERTIORARI.
Money paid by one for a joint purchase of a sloop, is not a partnership charge; nor within the statute of frauds, though the agreement to buy was parol.
The principal reason assigned for the reversal of the judgment below, was the insufficiency of the state of demand. The action was brought for money paid and expended for the use of the defendant. The state of demand set out that the plaintiff and defendant jointly purchased a certain portion of a sloop; and that the plaintiff paid the whole of the purchase money; and also paid the expense in taking out a license for the sloop, and charged one half of the money so paid, to defendant. As far as it could be collected from [455] the reasons filed, (the cause not being argued) the objections on this point were, that this was a partnership transaction, on which an action at law could not be sustained. Also, that it was not stated that the money was paid at the special instance and request of the defendant.
The court, on this point, was of opinion, that the plaintiff below, being liable to pay the joint debt of himself and the defendant arising on the contract for the purchase of the sloop, and having paid it, could well charge the defendant for his proportion as money laid out and expended to his use; that the money expended for the license of the sloop, was also money paid for the use of the defendant, that it did not involve a partnership account, having no connection with the profits or earnings of the vessel; and as to the mode of stating the demand, a formal declaration was not required in courts for the trial of small causes.
The statute of frauds and perjuries was set up below, on the ground that the contract was not in writing, nor any earnest given to bind the bargain.

Opinion:
But the Court was of opinion, that the case did not come within the statute.
[*] The defendant, below' objected to two witnesses, on the ground of interest; that one of them was a part owner of the sloop, and the other had been an owner. But the record of the justice not disclosing any facts whereby "an interest in the witnesses could be perceived in the cause under trial, the court was of opinion, that they were properly admitted; and
Affirmed the judgment.