Case Name: EXECUTORS OF BOWNE v. THOMPSON AND BRACKENRIDGE
Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1790-04
Citations: 1 N.J.L. 2
Docket Number: 
Parties: [2] EXECUTORS OF BOWNE v. THOMPSON AND BRACKENRIDGE.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Law Reports
Volume: 1
Pages: 2–3

Head Matter:
[2] EXECUTORS OF BOWNE v. THOMPSON AND BRACKENRIDGE.
1. In an action against partners for a partnership debt, the separate claims of the partners cannot be set off.
2. When any facts appear in evidence from which the jorv can infer a joint contract, the court will leave it to their decision.
This was an action brought against the defendants as partners, for work and labor performed for them by testator during his lifetime, in the capacity of clerk or manager of iron works. It was tried at bar.
Lealce, for defendants,
offered in evidence a receipt from Bowne to Thompson alone, for £30, dated 12th of July, 1784. He also offered to read a letter from Bowne to Thompson, in which the former undertook to be answerable for any debt contracted by one Loreman, and Jjorbroan's order on Bowne to pay Thompson £12 4a. 0½d. The evidence was objected to.

Opinion:
Kinsey, C. J.
The defendants are sued as partners. The partnership transactions therefore ean alone be inquired into. It would be highly improper, and a surprise upon the plaintiff, to allow the separate demands of the partners to be set off against their joint debt. Evidence rejected. See Bull, N. P. 180 ; 10 Ves., Jr., 105 ; 1 Binn. 64, Crammond v. Bank of U. S.; 1 Wash. 79, Scott v. Trent; 1 Hen. and Munf., 176, Armistead v. Administrators of Butler.
Leake then moved for a nonsuit, oil the ground that there was no evidence to prove that Brackenridge was a party to the contract with Bowne, or that he had ever employed him. The, case of Harris v. Butterly, Cowp. 483, was cited to prove that, in an action for a joint trespass, the plaintiff will not be permitted to give evidence of any other.
Per Cur.
There is some evidence from which the jury may infer that Bowne was employed by defendants jointly. It would seem they held a joint lease of Andover Iron Works, where Bowne had worked ; that the service was performed for their joint benefit, and although the evidence proves Thompson alone actually contracted with Bowne, yet it also proves that Brackenridge, who resided personally at There is some evidence from which the jury may infer that Bowne was employed by defendants jointly. It would seem they held a joint lease of Andover Iron Works, where Bowne had worked ; that the service was performed for their joint benefit, and although the evidence proves Thompson alone actually contracted with Bowne, yet it also proves that Brackenridge, who resided personally at [3] the works, and must have had knowledge of his being employed in the general service of the partnership, at least acquiesced in the arrangement made with him. This is sufficient evidence to go to the jury; it is with them to decide whether it be conclusive to charge Brackenridge. A non-suit should be granted only in a clear case.
Motion refused.