First National Bank v. Hattenbach

Citations

• 13 S.D. 365
• 83 N.W. 421
• 1900 S.D. LEXIS 153

Syllabus

<p>1. Where in the title of an action defendants are described as H. and H., and the complaint commences by stating- that plaintiff complains of the above-named defendants, and alleges that said defendants, under the name of H & Bro., executed and delivered the note sued on, such complaint is not demurrable because not connecting the defendants with H. & Bro., since, where defendants’ names are fully given in the title, it is sufficient to refer to them in the body of the complaint as “the above- ' named” or “the said” defendants.</p> <p>2. A complaint, in an action on a partnership note, alleging execution and delivery by defendants under the name of H. & Bro., is sufficient, without allegation of co-partnership under such name, since the action is against them as individuals, and an allegation of co-partnership is not essential. HeDce a statement in the title that defendants are partners, is unnecessary, and ma.y be treated as surplusage.</p> <p>3. Where a complaint alleges that defendants, under the name of H. & Bro., executed and delivered a note, proof of partnership under such name is admissible to show joint liability^ though no such partnership is alleged.</p>