Poole v. Fisher
| Decision Date | 30 September 1871 |
| Citation | 1871 WL 8355,62 Ill. 181 |
| Parties | SHERIDAN POOLE et al.v.A. D. FISHER et al. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the the Superior Court of Cook County; the Hon. WILLIAM A. PORTER, Judge, presiding.
Messrs. BLANCHARD & MILLER, for the appellants.
Mr. JAMES L. STARK, for the appellees.
This suit was brought against appellees, as partners, for goods sold and delivered. They denied the partnership by proper pleas, verified by affidavit.
The judgment was rendered against Fisher for the debt, and in favor of Miller for costs.
The claim is not disputed; and the only question is, was Miller liable, as partner, for the debt incurred?
Fisher--a man without means or credit--commenced business in Chicago, and purchased goods of appellants, merchants in New York. The firm name was A. D. Fisher & Co.
The reporter of the mercantile agency in Chicago had an interview with Miller as to the parties who comprised the firm of Fisher & Co. Miller informed him that his father and himself were general partners of Fisher. Upon this information a report was sent to New York that the firm was responsible, so long as Miller & Son were connected with it.
Poole testified that Fisher said to him, when he purchased goods, that Miller was his partner, and the monied man of the firm; that afterward he saw Miller in the store in Chicago; was introduced to him as the partner of Fisher; conversed with him as partner; supposed him to be so; sold the goods under that belief; and met Miller at the Sherman House afterward; and he assured the witness that the claim would be paid.
McKean testified that both Fisher and Miller told him, that Miller was one of the firm; that he was introduced to Miller as the partner of Fisher; and the former admitted that he was a full partner.
Fisk testified that he first met Miller and Fisher in the fall of 1867; that Fisher spoke of Miller as his particular friend and partner; that Miller remarked that he took no active part in the business, but allowed Fisher to manage it; that afterward Miller spoke to him about a bill due by the firm, and said it must be paid.
Kelley, a clerk for the firm, testified he had a conversation with Miller, before the store was opened, and he said if the business proved successful, “we will go in on a large scale;” that he would be satisfied if the store paid his spending money; that on one occasion Miller said to him, “do the best you can for us, and we will do well by you;” that he made inquiries about the business; and that he frequently heard Fisher introduce Miller as his partner, without any denial on the part of Miller.
This proof, if it does not show an actual partnership between the parties, is pretty conclusive that one existed as to third persons.
The testimony in defense is very slight.
Fisher...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ramsey v. Tully
...75 Ill. 141; Plummer v. Rigdon, 78 Ill. 222; Gilbert v. Bone, 79 Ill. 341. As to partnership: Wheeler v. McEldowney, 60 Ill. 358; Poole v. Fisher, 62 Ill. 181. WILSON, J. As the judgment of the court below must be reversed on other grounds, and the cause be remanded for a new trial, we omit......
-
Donnan v. Bang
...Gilm. 715; Dwight v. Newell, 15 Ill. 333. Defendants held themselves out as partners, and became liable to third persons as such: Poole v. Fischer, 62 Ill. 181; Smith v. Knight, 71 Ill. 148; Fischer v. Bowles, 20 Ill. 396; Niehoff v. Dudley, 40 Ill. 406. A verdict will not be disturbed unle......
-
Morse v. Richmond
...Freemont v. Coupland, 2 Bing. 170; Boggs v. Olcott, 40 Ill. 303; Niehoff v. Dudley, 40 Ill. 406; Pettis v. Atkins, 60 Ill. 454; Poole v. Fisher, 62 Ill. 181; Stark v. Corey, 45 Ill. 431; Peine v. Weber, 47 Ill. 41; Story on Partnership, § 138. MCALLISTER, J. In March, 1873, the appellant Mo......
- Burton v. City of Chicago.