Case Name: ADEE v. CROW
Court: New York City Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1894-02-08
Citations: 27 N.Y.S. 973
Docket Number: 
Parties: ADEE v. CROW.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 27
Pages: 973–973

Head Matter:
(7 Misc. Rep. 256.)
ADEE v. CROW.
(City Court of New York, General Term.
February 8, 1894.)
Contracts—Validity—Use of Partnership Name.
In an action on a note by the transferee thereof against the maker, it is no defense that plaintiff did business under the name and style of a firm without having a partner.
Appeal from trial term.
Action by Fred. Adee against Hoses R Crow on a promissory note. From a judgment entered on a verdict in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Argued before EHRLICH, C. J., and VAN WYCK and FITZSIHONS, JJ.
Albertus Perry, for appellant.
Stephen H. Yeaman, for respondent.

Opinion:
EHRLICH, C. J.
The action is on a promissory note, made by the defendant to the order of one John Tilley, and by him delivered to the plaintiff. The 'sole ground urged against the verdict is that the plaintiff did business under the name and style of Fred. Adee & Co., without having a partner. The defense was not pleaded, and the plaintiff was not called upon to prove, that he had secured thé right to use the firm name, under existing statutes. But, aside from this, the defense was unavailable against the note in suit. Gay v. Seibold, 97 N. Y. 475. The appeal is destitute of merit, and the judgment must be affirmed, with costs. All concur.