Case Name: MARET et al. v. WOOD
Court: United States Circuit Court of the District of Columbia
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1826-12
Citations: 16 F. Cas. 713
Docket Number: 
Parties: MARET et al. v. WOOD.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Cases
Volume: 16
Pages: 713–713

Head Matter:
•Case No. 9,067.
MARET et al. v. WOOD.
[3 Cranch, C. C. 2.]
Circuit Court, District of Columbia.
Dec. Term, 1826.
Pleading at Law — General Issue — What It Admits.
By pleading the general issue the defendant admits the right of the plaintiffs to sue by the name of Charles Maret & Son, without naming the son; and a note, indorsed to the plaintiffs by that name, and produced bythem on the trial, is primfi. facie evidence of the existence of such a firm.
Assumpsit, on the defendant’s promissory note for $163.25, dated May 27, 1820, payable twelve months after date to one Thomas Williams, or order, and by him indorsed “to Charles Maret & Son.” Plea, non assump-sit, and issue. The declaration stated that “William Wood was attached to answer to Charles Maret & Son, trading under the firm of Charles Maret & Son,” without naming the son, whereupon the said plaintiffs complain, &c.
Mr. Hall, for defendant,
prayed the court to instruct the jury that the plaintiffs could not recover unless they proved, by other evidence than the indorsement, the existence of such a house or- copartnership as that of Charles Maret & Son; which instruction THE COURT refused to give, (THRUSTON, Circuit Judge, absent,) being of opinion that the defendant, by pleading the general issue, had admitted the existence of such a firm and the competency of the plaintiffs to sue by that name; and that if the defendant had now any remedy, it must be by motion in arrest of judgment.

Opinion:
MORSELL, Circuit Judge,
was of opinion that the production of the note by the plaintiffs, indorsed to them, by that name, was primfi facie evidence of the existence of such a firm.
Verdict for the plaintiff.