Buch v. Newsome
| Decision Date | 25 February 1943 |
| Docket Number | No. 421.,421. |
| Citation | 30 A.2d 579,129 N.J.L. 585 |
| Parties | BUCH et al. v. NEWSOME et al. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Action by A. L. Buch and others, partners, trading as the Buch Express, against James Newsome and another for damages caused by a collision between a truck and an automobile. On a rule to show cause why the venue should not be changed to the county of defendants' residence.
Change of venue granted.
January term, 1943, before BODINE, HEHER, and PERSKIE, JJ.
Sigmund Auerbach, of Jersey City, for plaintiff.
Carey & Lane and Harry Lane, all of Jersey City, for defendants.
On December 12, 1932, there was an accident between a truck and an automobile on Route 25 between Princeton and Trenton. The defendants reside and were served with process in Mercer County. The venue was laid in Hudson County and the defendants seek to have it changed to Mercer County. The plaintiffs are ‘A. L. Buch, Raymond Buch and Sondell Coleman trading as The Buch Express, plaintiff.’ So they must sue. Seely v. Schenck, 2 N.J.L. 75. One could not bring the action. All must join. Autin v. Townsend, 3 N.J.L. 313.
The partnership exists under the laws of Pennsylvania, where some of the partners reside, and an office is there maintained. There is also an office in Jersey City where one of the partners claims a residence. However, there was no registration of the partnership in this state pursuant to N.J.S.A. 56:1-1 et seq. This circumstance requires us to regard the cause of action as vested in the partnership as it exists under the laws of Pennsylvania. Whether or not one of the partners maintains a residence in this state is immaterial. However, the proofs examined suggest that he did not. The cause of action is not his but is a partnership intangible asset with a situs definitely out of this state. The presumption of residence as alleged in the complaint is overcome.
Since the cause of action arose in Mercer County and process was served there under N.J.S.A. 2:27-19, the change of venue must be granted with costs. Worley v. Scudder, 10 N.J.L. 231.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
X-L Liquors v. Taylor
...matters be maintained by and against the individual partners. See Seeley v. Schenck, 2 N.J.L. 75 (Sup.Ct.1806); Buch v. Newsome, 129 N.J.L. 585, 586, 30 A.2d 579 (Sup.Ct.1943); Lewis v. West Side Trust & Savings Bank, 377 Ill. 384, 36 N.E.2d 573 (Sup.Ct.1941); Dwyer v. Wiley Hotel Co., 91 O......
-
Charne v. Essex Chair Co.
...an intangible asset of the partnership so that all partners must join in an action to enforce such a claim. Buch v. Newsome, Supreme Court N.J. 1943, 129 N.J.L. 585, 30 A.2d 579. See also: Crane on Partnership, § 57. Under the Uniform Partnership Act, § 25, in effect in both New Jersey and ......
- Dombal v. City Of Garfield.