Case Name: SCHROTH v. GEDNEY et al.
Court: New York City Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1899-12-27
Citations: 61 N.Y.S. 923
Docket Number: 
Parties: SCHROTH v. GEDNEY et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 61
Pages: 923–923

Head Matter:
SCHROTH v. GEDNEY et al.
(City Court of New York, General Term.
December 27, 1899.)
¡Partnership—Existence—Evidence.
Evidence of the existence at one time of a firm, and who the members then were, that signs bearing firm name were on an office used by them, and that one of defendants ordered the work, and both oversaw it, and gave orders about its performance, was evidence of existence at the time of bringing suit
Appeal from special term.
Action by George Schroth against William A. Gedney and another. From an order dismissing the complaint, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.-
Argued before FITZSIMONS, C. J., and O’DWYER and SCHUCHMAN, JJ.
Edward W. S. Johnston, for appellant.
William S. Bennett, for respondents.

Opinion:
O'DWYER, J.
The plaintiff having testified to the existence of the firm of William H. Gedney & Son in 1893 and 1894, and that the firm was composed of William H. Gedney and William A. Gedney, the original defendants in this action, and there being evidence that there were signs of William H. Gedney & Son on the •office frequented by William H. Gedney and William A. Gedney, and that William A. Gedney gave orders for the work, and that William H. Gedney and William A. Gedney both oversaw the performance of the work, and both gave orders about the performance of the work to the plaintiff and their workmen, presented evidence , of the existence of a co-partnership, and the dismissal of the complaint was error.
Judgment and order appealed from reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event. All concur.