Skip to main content
· 10/15/1882

Boyd v. Ricketts & Brister

Citations

  • 60 Miss. 62

Syllabus

<p>1. Partnership. Evidence of creditor’s knowledge thereof. Information, whether hearsay.</p> <p>L. sued B., B., J., H., and 0., as partners under the firm name of B. & B., for a debt contracted in December, 1879. J., H., and 0. denied the partnership. Before the trial J. died, and his executor was made a defendant in his stead. At the trial, L.’s attorneys adduced evidence tending to prove that the partnership had existed prior to 1879, and then offered his deposition to the effect that he had dealings with E. & B. in 1877 and 1878, and was then informed by a third person that J., H., and 0. were members of the firm; and that he had no notice of any withdrawal, except that he was informed in May, 1879, that B., B., and J. composed the firm. The defendants objected to the admission of the deposition on the grounds, (1) that it tended to establish the deponent’s own claim against the estate of a deceased person, and (2) that it was hearsay testimony. The court sustained the objections. Held, that as to the estate of J., the deposition was properly rejected for the reason stated in the first objection; but as to H. and 0. it should not have been excluded as hearsay testimony, for although not competent to prove that they had been members of the firm, it was competent, after proof of that fact had been adduced, to show L.’s knowledge of such fact, and that as to him they were not dormant, but known partners. But the exclusion of the deposition could do L. no harm, as it shows that he knew of the withdrawal of H. and 0. from the firm before his debt was contracted</p> <p>2. Same. Evidence thereof. Paper written by alleged partner.</p> <p>In the case above stated, the plaintiff offered in evidence an application of R. & B. for a revenue license, which purported to set out the names of the members of the firm. It was prepared and sworn to by R., but not in the presence of J., H., or 0. Its admission was objected to, and the objection sustained by the court. Held, that as

Judges: Cooper

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.