Case Name: Patrick M. Danaher and another v. Thomas A. Hitchcock
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1876-10-11
Citations: 34 Mich. 516
Docket Number: 
Parties: Patrick M. Danaher and another v. Thomas A. Hitchcock.
Judges: 
Reporter: Michigan Reports
Volume: 34
Pages: 516–516

Head Matter:
Patrick M. Danaher and another v. Thomas A. Hitchcock.
Declaration: Promissory notes: Partnership name. A declaration against two defendants, on common counts, with, promissory note apioended, purporting to he signed in a firm name, is not open to demurrer for a failure to aver that defendants are partners.
Declaration: Venue. The omission of the venue in a declaration is not,, under our statute {Comp. L., 1871, § 6198), a demurrable defect.
Submitted on briefs October 10.
Decided October 11.
Error to Mason Circuit.
This was a declaration on common counts with a promissory note appended, signed Danaher & Melendy. The declaration contained no venue. The bill of particulars limited the recovery to the promissory note. Defendants demurred, and the demurrer being overruled and judgment rendered for plaintiff, they brought error.
1White & Ilaight, for plaintiffs in error,
in support of the demurrer argued that the want of venue was a fatal defect; and that the declaration was also defective in not averring the copartnership of defendants, and that, they as copartners made the promise sued upon. v
O. Cr. Wing, for defendant in error.

Opinion:
Per Curiam:
There is nothing in the exceptions relied upon. That, which relates to the want of an averment of defendants' partnership is covered by Pegg v. Bidleman, 5 Mich., 26, and that which relates to the venue is settled by the statute.
The judgment is affirmed, with costs.