Court Opinion

ID: 9416771
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 19:55:02.481513+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:53.895347
License: Public Domain

*488Mr. Justice NELSON,
with whom concurred Mr. Justice DAVIS, dissenting.
The question is, whether the statement of the plaintiff, in his conversation with Miles Murphy, that he had placed the pork in the hands of Allen, that it was sent to Chicago, and that he was out of pocket some $8000 or $10,000, under the circumstances mentioned, was admissible ?
It occurred in a conversation with a person to whom B. E. Murphy, one of the defendants, had sent the plaintiff to endeavor to obtain from him the proceeds of the pork. Now, this conversation was competent evidence as against B. E. Murphy as it respects the business upon which the plaintiff' had been sent; he, B. E. Murphy, had accredited Miles Murphy to speak for him in respect to the transaction, and so far as it might tend to prove the partnership of B. E. Murphy with Allen, competent and pertinent. We agree it was no evidence against Allen, nor does it appear that the court gave it any effect as to him. It is not required that, in proving a partnership, the evidence must be competent as it respects each member of the firm. The proof can be given as bearing separately against each of the parties. Miles Murphy, in response to the mission of the plaintiff', stated that B. F. Murphy was a partner of Allen, and that the firm had received and sold the pork. As this response was competent testimony against B. F. Murphy, it was properly admitted. The whole conversation that occurred, or which related to the business-about which the plaintiff’ was .-sent, was properly allowed. It was no evidence as against Allen, as we have already said, but was as it respected the other defendant. On this ground we cannot agree to the opinion of the court.