Robert Barry, Plaintiff In Error v. Thomas Foyles
| Decision Date | 01 January 1828 |
| Citation | 26 U.S. 311,7 L.Ed. 157,1 Pet. 311 |
| Parties | ROBERT BARRY, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. THOMAS FOYLES |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
sum of $3,410 25, for debts due from the firm of James D. Barry & Co. assumed by him to pay to the plaintiff in the attachment. This account or statement, was accompanied by an affidavit, that 'it was just and true, is it stands stated.' The plaintiff in error appeared and gave special bail; and a declaration was then filed, in indebitatus assumpsit, &c., and the plea of the general issue entered.
On the trial of the cause, the plaintiff offered in evidence to sustain his case, three paper writings, signed by E. Rice, which are stated, in extenso, in the opinion of the Court.
In order to prove the defendant chargeable with the amount delivered by the plaintiff below, Thomas Rice was produced and sworn as a witness; who testified, as set forth in the opinion of the Court.
The counsel for the defendant below objected to the evidence, and the objection being overruled, the case was brought by writ of error to this Court.
Messrs. Coxe and Worthington, for the plaintiffs in error, contended.
1st. That the evidence is not competent and sufficient to charge the plaintiff in error, upon his alledged assumpsit.
2nd. That under the declaration of indebitatus assumpsit, the evidence is also incompetent and insufficient.
By the statement filed upon oath, the claim of the plaintiff is averred to be a debt due by James D. Barry, & Co., which the defendant below assumed to pay.
The evidence on the part of the plaintiff below did not show such a firm as James D. Barry, & Co.; nor did the same prove an implied, much less an express assumpsit by Robert Barry.
The plaintiff below complied with the law of Maryland, by stating his cause of action, when the attachment was issued; and the defendant appeared and entered a plea thereto. Subsequently, he filed a declaration of indebitatus assumpsit, which was irregular. This cannot be done, and therefore the evidence applied only to the first declaration; which stated an assumption of the debt of James D. Barry, & Co., and no proof was offered of such assumption. The evidence does not show any connexion between Rice and the defendant, nor any authority from Robert Barry, by which his acts or acknowledgments could become binding on him; the plaintiffs did not therefore make out the case spread upon the record by the first declaration.
The papers signed by Rice were improperly admitted. No. 1. is given in the name of James D. Barry. The other two refer to transactions in which the defendant is not named.
2. Upon a general declaration in assumpsit, the issue is not maintained by proof of a partnership debt.
The general rule, that the defendant, who is charged separately for a joint debt, should plead this in abatement, does not apply, when the plaintiff has by his pleadings given no notice of the nature of his demand, until the time of trial, Jordan vs. Wilkins, 3 Wash. Decis. 112. In the case of Rice vs. Shout, 5 Burr, 2611, Lord Mansfield adverts strongly to the circumstance, that the defendant was the person with whom the business was transacted. Also cited Abbott vs. Smith, 2 Black. 947.
3. The agency of Rice was a special agency, and his acknowledgments were not evidence. He might have made entries in the books to charge his principal, but no more. 1 Esp. Rep. 375. 2 Stark. Evid. 60. Nor does his testimony prove the interest or partnership of Robert Barry, in the dealings to which the papers have reference. 3 Stark. Evid. p. 4. 1067.
Mr. Jones for the defendant.
The objections to the proceedings, as they apply to the first and second declarations, have no force. The account filed, when the writ issued, against Robert Barry alone, states his assumption of the partnership debt; and if this was objectionable, it should have been pleaded in abatement.
It was at one time supposed, that in all cases of attachment a second declaration should be filed; but this was afterwards considered as not essential; but the party has at all times a right to vary his pleadings, and even at 'the rules' to file a new declaration. To the pleadings in this case, no exception was taken, nor was any objection made at the trial.
The objection to the evidence, as applicable to the account filed, ought not to prevail. If Robert Barry was a partner in the transactions, to which the papers refer, the law raises an assumption. The plaintiff is not tied down to prove an express assumpsit, when proof is given that he was a partner; and an action will lie against one partner alone, on his express assumpsit.
2. The evidence of debts due by J. D. Barry, & Co. was properly applied to charge Robert Barry, the plaintiff in error. There must always be a plea in abatement, where the parties are not joined. As to joinder of parties; Mr. Foot cited, with other cases, Minor vs. the Mechanics Bank of Alexandria, decided ante page 46, this Term; and also 5 Burr, 2611.
If the evidence could in any way charge the defendant below, it was admissible. Partnership may be proved by circumstances; and the Court did not decide upon the effect of the testimony, but only that it should go, generally, to the Jury. This is a case in which the principal is charged with the acts of the agent, within the scope of his authority; the business of the concern being intrusted to the management of Rice by the parties.
This is a writ of error to a judgment of the Circuit Court of the United States for the district of Columbia, sitting in the county of Washington. The defendant in error had sued out an attachment against Robert Barry, and had filed an account against James D. Barry & Co., said to be assumed by Robert Barry. Robert Barry appeared, gave special bail, and discharged the attachment. Thomas Foyles then filed a declaration of indebitatus assumpsit, for money had and received, and for goods, &c. delivered; to which Robert Barry pleaded the general issue, and the parties went to trial.
At the trial, the plaintiff in the Circuit Court, offered in evidence, three paper writings signed by Edmond Rice; and also produced Thomas Rice, a witness, who swore, that at the time the said paper writings bear date, and for a long time before and after, E. Rice, whose name is signed to the said writings, was foreman and manager of a tan-yard in Washington; kept the books, bought and sold leather, and managed the whole concern for the proprietors; that the said papers are in his hand writing; that the said Foyles, for about seven years, (including the dates of said writings) being a butcher, was in the habit of delivering, from time to time, great numbers of hides, to the said Rice, at the said yard, and had contracted with the said Rice to deliver there all the hides of the cattle slaughtered by him. That the said business was carried on in the name of James D. Barry, living in Washington, till a settlement, which witness understood took place between the said James D. Barry and Robert Barry; after a while it was carried on in the name of Robert Barry. The witness was not present at the settlement, and does not know its nature or terms. During the time that the business was carried...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sidway v. Missouri Land & Live Stock Company, Limited
... ... order and decision in this case; and it is error ... to frame, try or adjudge issues not made by ... Burlingame, ... 36 Kan. 628; Kraft v. Thomas, 123 Ind. 513; ... Palmer v. Palmer, 36 Mich ... on plaintiff's petition. Ice Co. v. Tamm, 138 ... Mo. 389; ... Ins. Co., 47 Mo. 442; Barry v. Foyles, 1 Pet ... 311; Railroad v. Weaver, ... ...
-
In re Bertenshaw
...are its own debts is true in a sense, but they are also the debts of each partner. As Chief Justice Marshall observed in Barry v. Foyles, 1 Pet. 311, 317, 7 L.Ed. 157, 'the assumpsit is made by all and by each. ' It ever been the rule that the individual estate of a partner may with due reg......
-
Williams v. James
...or exemption which it was competent for the party to waive. The cases of Pollard v. Dwight, 4 Cranch 421 2 L.Ed. 666, and Barry v. Foyles, 1 Pet. 311 7 L.Ed. 157, are decisive to show that after appearance and plea, the case stands as if the suit were brought in the usual manner." (Italics ......
-
Kennedy v. C. H. Morrison. C. H. Morrison
...leave no doubt of the correctness of the ruling of the court below. The case cited from the supreme court of the United States (Barry v. Foyles, 1 Pet. 311) goes solely upon the ground that the appearance of defendant and giving bail prevented any further inquiry into the attachment proceed......