Court Opinion

ID: 8632031
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-24 19:39:12.526571+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:55:47.917904
License: Public Domain

THE COURT
(BETTS, District Judge),
charged the jury that it was conceded that a cash capital must be paid bona fide by the special partner, and if he fails to do so, he is to be considered a general partner. But ■the court held that the certificate and affidavit was prima facie evidence that the money had been paid, and required no further evidence until this proof was impeached by the other party, and evidence adduced on their part to show that the money never had been paid. But in the present case, besides the certificate and affidavit the defendant had also produced other proof that ne paid the money. If the jury found the fact that the defendant had not paid in the capital, they should on that ground find a verdict for the plaintiff.
The court also ruled that the word “Company.” in the title of the firm, rendered the defendant and all the other members of it general partners.
The court considered that the withdrawal of part of his capital only rendered the defendant responsible to pay it back, but in order to raise the point of law, it was necessary to ascertain the fact, and the jury were to say whether he had withdrawn any part of his capital.
The juiy would, therefore, find two facts, whether the defendant had paid in the capital, and whether he had withdrawn any part of it. And then on the other questions of law involved in the case, the jury would, under the direction of the court, find a verdict for the plaintiff.
The jury.find that the sum of seventy-five thousand dollars was paid into the concern of E. M. Morgan & Co. by the defendant, Knowles Taylor. They find also that no part of said money has been withdrawn by the said defendant. And under the charge of the court, they find a general verdict for plaintiff in the sum of $14,116.29.