Richardson v. Bartlett

• Decision Date: 27 March 1916
• Parties: RICHARDSON et al. v. BARTLETT.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

223 Mass. 450

111 N.E. 965

RICHARDSON et al.

v.BARTLETT.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

March 27, 1916.

Exceptions from Superior Court, Suffolk County; Lloyd, E. White, Judge.

Action by John B. Richardson and another against Ralph W. Bartlett. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant excepts. Exceptions overruled.

Early in the trial while the plaintiff John B. Richardson was under direct examination, the defendant contending that this suit could not be maintained except by the proper parties, the plaintiff called the attention of the court and introduced in evidence a certified copy of a notice filed on the 6th day of February, 1914, in the city clerk's office in the city of Boston and signed by the plaintiff which stated that the plaintiff was with two others conducting the business under the firm name of Richardson Brothers & Co. The plaintiff John B. Richardson was then subjected to the following cross-examination:

Q. (By Mr. Warshauer). Now, at the time this contract was made, did you have a partner in your business? A. Well, my brother has been interested in there.

Q. Can't you say yes or no to that question? A. Well, it has been so long ago I don't remember exactly.

Q. In 1910, were you doing business alone? A. I wouldn't want to say. My brother has been in partnership with me a number of times.

Q. This says, J. B. Richardson and N. S. Richardson. A. Yes. Well, then, he was with me.

Q. Is he now a partner? A. No, sir; not now.

Q. When did you terminate the partnership? A. Last year, if I remember right.

Q. Was he a partner in 1912? A. He was.

Q. Was he a partner at the time this work in suit; when the arrangement for doing this work in suit was made? A. Yes.

Q. And this work contained in this declaration is an account that is due Richardson Brothers, is it not? A. That's right.

Q. This suit is brought by you individually? A. I am the owner of the business now and taken over all the debts and claims and paid everything; therefore, for the reason--

Q. The suit is brought by you individually? A. I think it was. * * *

Q. (By Mr. Warshauer). Any notice ever given to anybody of the dissolution of the partnership? A. I beg your pardon?

Q. Was there any notice given to anybody of the dissolution of partnership? A. I don't remember.

Q. Are you positive you gave notice at the clerk's office of the city of Boston that you were doing business under the name of Richardson Brothers? A. I don't know. It seems to me as though I have taken in a plumber with me to do some plumbing.

Q. Mr. Saunders? A. Mr. Saunders, yes, if that is what you refer to.

Q. He was a partner at one time, wasn't he? A. Not anything more than I was to turn over my plumbing to him. He does all my plumbing, that's all.

Q. I will show you a copy of the certificate which you did file in the city clerk's office. ‘John B. Richardson, 112 Porter Street.’ A. Somerville.

Q. ‘Noah Richardson, 147 Hudson Street’? A. Somerville.

Q. ‘John D. Saunders, 119 Hunter Street.’ Signed, ‘Richardson Brothers, by John B. Richardson, Manager.’ That is you, isn't it? A. That's me.

Q. Did you ever file any other certificate than that? A. That is the only one was filed. That was in regard to the plumbing, that's all, my understanding, only for me--

Q. I haven't asked you any question.

During this cross-examination the plaintiff moved to amend the writ and declaration as follows: By inserting in the writ after the name ‘John B. Richardson’ the name and words ‘and Noah Richardson.’ By striking out in the declaration the words ‘John B. Richardson’ wherever they occur on the first page and inserting in their place ‘Richardson Brothers,’ also by substituting in the declaration for the word ‘him’ the word ‘them’ wherever same occurs. This motion was...