Case Name: PUGH vs. PRIESTLY ET AL.
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1840-04
Citations: 15 La. 287
Docket Number: 
Parties: PUGH vs. PRIESTLY ET AL.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 15
Pages: 287–288

Head Matter:
PUGH vs. PRIESTLY ET AL.
Eastern Dist.
April, 1840.
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT.
Where partners carry on a rum distillery, and one of them who is in the habit of buying molasses for the concern, and drawing drafts on his co-partner, draws a draft for a quantity of molasses which is delivered and used, and the co-partner refuses toaccept it: Held, that they are both liable and bound, in solido, for its amount. '
The plaintiff alleges, that according to an agreement entered into between him and the defendants, James Priestly and Malcolm M‘Nabb, he sold and delivered to them at his plantation, in the parish of Assumption, nineteen thousand nine hundred and ninety-nine gallons of mdlasses, at twenty-two and a half cents per gallon, amounting to four thousand four hundred and ninety-nine dollars ninety-seven cents, for which the defendant, M‘Nabb, drew a draft on his co-partner, Priestly, payable sixty days after date, and which was duly protested for non-acceptance.
The plaintiff further shows, that the defendants were engaged as partners in a rum distillery, and that the molasses in question was delivered and used at the distillery, and that the defendants are liable, in solido, for the amount, according to the price agreed on, and costs,of protest of their draft, for which he prays judgment.
The defendant, Priestly, pleaded a general denial. M‘Nabb confessed judgment, as prayed for. There was full proof of the plaintiff’s demand. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, and the judge presiding rendered judgment, in solido, against both defendants. Priestly, alone, appealed.
Peyton, for the plaintiff,
insisted that the evidence showed that the defendants were engaged together in business, and actually received and used the molasses in question. They are both liable, as charged in the judgment.
Preston and Grivot, contra,
contended that the appellant was not bound, in solido, with M‘Nabb, the drawer of the draft.

Opinion:
Morphy, J.,
delivered the opinion of the court.
This suit is brought to recover of the defendants, in solido, the price of a certain quantity of molasses bought of plaintiff, by M'Nabb, one of the defendants, who gave in payment for it, his draft on his co-defendant, Priestly, who refused to accept it. A general denial was filed by both defendants, but, before the day of trial, M'Nabb confessed judgment. The issue left to be tried between the remaining parties to the suit, was submitted to a jury, who gave the plaintiff a verdict, without leaving their seats. Priestly moved for a new trial, which failing to obtain, he has appealed.
The evidence shows that the defendants kept a distillery, and were in partnership for that kind of business; that the purchases of molasses were generally made by M'Nabb, who was in the habit of drawing for their payment on his partner, Priestiy, as had been done in this case, and that M'Nabb's drafts were generally honored by Priestly; that the molasses for which M'Nabb gave plaintiff the draft sued on, was purchased for the account of the partnership, wa3 delivered into their distillery, and that part of said molasses had been actually used when a difficulty arose between the defendants, which led, very shortly after, to a dissolution of the concern. With these facts spread on the record, we cannot perceive on what the appellant could build his hopes for success in this court.
It is, therefore, ordered, that the judgment of the District Court be affirmed, with costs.