Porter v. Graves

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Citation104 U.S. 171,26 L.Ed. 691
PartiesPORTER v. GRAVES
Decision Date01 October 1881

ERROR to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of New York.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Mr. Henry J. Scudder for the plaintiff in error.

Mr. Francis Kernan, contra.

MR. JUSTICE MILLER delivered the opinion of the court.

This action was commenced by Jennie L. Graves in the Supreme Court of New York, and was, on the application of Porter, removed into the Circuit Court of the United States.

It was brought to recover the purchase price of a portable saw-mill, which she, acting as administratrix of Cyrus Graves, deceased, alleged she had sold to J. Morton Poole, William T. Porter, and W. G. Norwood, who were at the time partners in the business of sawing and manufacturing lumber and timber, and of procuring, owning, and operating a saw-mill for that purpose, at or near Homerville, Ga. Though all the partners were sued, Porter only appeared or was served. His answer raised several issues, which were submitted to a jury under the charge of the court. The exceptions to this charge, and to the refusal to grant the instructions prayed by his counsel, with some exceptions in regard to evidence, constitute the errors on which he relies to reverse the judgment in favor of the plaintiff.

The evidence tended to show that the plaintiff, who resided in New York, made a visit to Georgia, and while there had negotiations with Norwood concerning the sale of the saw-mill; that her right to sell without an order of the probate court of the proper county being considered doubtful, Norwood said that if she would get the necessary authority to sell he would, for the firm of J. Morton Poole & Co., give $5,000 for the mill; that, having been duly appointed administratrix of the estate of the deceased by the surrogate of Cortland County, New York, she procured an order of sale from the probate judge of the county of Georgia, in which the mill was situated; and that after a due advertisement the mill was sold to Norwood, as one of the partners of J. Morton Poole & Co., for $5,000.

The first point we shall examine relates to the existence of this partnership. The judge, in his charge to the jury, said that this was conceded by the parties. To this an exception was taken at the time.

We have already given the language of the declaration alleging the existence of this partnership. The answer of Porter on that subject is as follows: 'And defendant admits that he and the defendants Poole and Norwood were interested together in the business of sawing and manufacturing lumber at the time mentioned in the complaint, and contemplated and intended to procure by lease or purchase, or erect, a saw-mill in the neighborhood of Homerville, aforesaid; but said defendant denies that the defendants or either of them applied to the plaintiff to purchase the saw-mill described in the complaint, and alleged to have been the personal property of said Cyrus Graves in his lifetime, or to buy any personal property.'

We think this is a concession or admission of the alleged partnership; and when it is further proved without contradiction that the mill, at the time of sale, was in the prossession and use of those gentlemen, the instruction of the court was justified.

Poole and Porter resided in Delaware, and Norwood was a citizen of North Carolina. In a letter dated Wilmington, Delaware, and signed J. Morton Poole & Co., written to Mrs. Graves, in Cortland County, before she went to Georgia, in which the subject of the purchase and price of the mill and her power to sell it are considered, it is said: 'We do not think your price is unreasonable, and though Mr. Norwood is a partner and must be consulted, we say now, as Mr. Pusey said to you personally, that we are the responsible parties in the concern and control all the decisions.' This is relied on to show the error of the court in the statement that the existence of the partnership was conceded. But as the statement of this letter is positive that Norwood was a partner, and as the partnership was then negotiating for the purchase of this mill, we are of opinion that it proves the soundness of the charge on that point. The effect of private arrangements between the partners as to the relative influence and responsibility of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • State Ex Rel. Gary K. King v. Lyons
    • United States
    • New Mexico Supreme Court
    • January 24, 2011
    ...is for the purpose of inviting competition among bidders that the highest price may be obtained for what is sold.” Porter v. Graves, 104 U.S. 171, 174, 26 L.Ed. 691 (1881). {62} Contemporaneously with the passage of New Mexico's Enabling Act, several state courts discussed the required elem......
  • 41 243 Baker v. Gold Seal Liquors, Inc 8212 804
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • June 17, 1974
  • In re Receivership of Great Western Beet Sugar Co.
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • July 15, 1912
    ... ... (Ackerman v ... Ackerman, 50 Neb. 54, 69 N.W. 388; Zantzinger v ... Pole, 1 Dall. (U.S.) 419, 1 L.Ed. 204; Porter v ... Graves, 104 U.S. 171, 26 L.Ed. 691; Camden v ... Mayhew, 129 U.S. 73, 9 S.Ct. 246, 32 L.Ed. 608; Walker ... v. McLoud, 204 U.S. 299, 27 ... ...
  • Wilde, State Examiner v. Zimmerman, 1827
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • March 13, 1934
    ... ... possession from that which existed prior to the sale, must be ... shown by clear and unequivocal proof. Porter v ... Graves, 104 U.S. 171; Wilson v. Hotchkiss ... (Calif.) 154 P. 1; Norton v. Simonds, 124 Mass ... 19; Harlan v. Carney (Mich.) 189 ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT