M. S. Ball & Co. v. Strohecker

Citations

• 29 S.C.L. 364

Syllabus

<p>1. Where, in an action brought by the indorsees of a promissory note, which had been indorsed in blank, against the drawer, it appeared from the declaration, that plaintiffs were merchants and co-partners, trading as a firm, and no right was stated in themselves, other than that designated by the style of the firm, the proof being that another besides plaintiffs was a member of the firm, it was held, that the description of plaintiffs as co-partners, could not be regarded as surplusage, and that the nonjoinder of the other member was fatal.</p> <p>2. Had the plaintiffs alleged the right of action to be in themselves, their exclusive right would have been presumed, even although it had been made to appear that the note had once belonged to a firm of which they had been members; the transfer from the firm to them, would prima, facie have been implied from their possession and joining in the suit, just as if the note had been made payable to bearer.</p> <p>3. Even then, however, distinct proof that still the note belonged to the firm, would have destroyed their right of action, as it would that of any other person but the true owners.</p>