(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Standard encyclopaedia of procedure"

■MH!4t!ili: 



llffliSiniil'.W."'™*'''^ LfBRARV 




3 1924 087 634 527 



v>»^"''£;v>- 






^^0 



,A 



v/4w i\*'':'- 




Cornell University 
Library 



The original of tiiis book is in 
the Cornell University Library. 

There are no known copyright restrictions in 
the United States on the use of the text. 



http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924087634527 



STANDARD 

ENCYCLOPAEDIA of 
PROCEDURE 



EDWARD W. TUTTLE 

EDITOR 



Vol. XXI 



LOS ANGELES 

L. D. POWELL COMPANY 

CHICAGO 



COPYBIGHT, 1919 
BT L. D. FOWEIJi COMPAK? 




CITE THIS VOLUME 

21 STANDARD PROC. 



TABLE OF TITLES 



Partnership 



1 



Party Walls HI 

Passengers 113 

Patents 170 

Paupers 227 

Pawnbrokers 241 

Payment ; 243 

Penalties, Forfeitures and Fines 257 

Pensions and Bounties ^ 306 

Perjury 311 

Personaij Actions , 335 

Personal Property 337 

Petitions 349 

Physical Examination 352 

Physicians and Surgeons 365 

Piracy 388 

Pleading 390 

Pleas 434 

Pleas in Equity 441 

Pledges 455 

Post Office 466 

Powers 481 

Praecipe 487 

Prayer 490 

Preliminary Examination' 493 

Principal and Agent 530 

Principal and Surety — - 572 

Prisons AND Prisoners - -. ,. 598 



Private and Toll Eoads 610 

Privilege 619 

Prize Fighting 639 

Probate Courts 641 

Proceedings in Rem 675 

Process 680 

Profanity 798 

Prohibition ' 800 

Prostitution 827 

Province of Judge and Jury 831 

Public Charities 865 

Public Drunkenness 872 

Public Lands :. 875 

Public Service Corporations 893 

Puis Darrein Continuance, Pleas op 960 

Pure Food Laws 969 

Quia Timet 991 

Quieting Title 994 



PARTNERSHIP 

By the Editorial Staff. 



t. ACTIONS OR SUITS BETWEEN PARTNERS OR THEIR REP- 
RESENTATIVES, 6 

A. Actions at Law, 6 

1. Transactions Involving an Account, 6 

a. Generally, 6 

b. Pleading Such Matters Defensively, 10 

2. Transactions Not Involving an Account, 10 

3. Single Unadjusted or Specially Segregated Item, 11 
4i. Partnership Limited to a Single Transaction, 11 

5. Possession of Partnership Property, 12 

6. Non-Partnership or Individual Transactions, 12 

a. Generally, 12 

b. Preliminary Contracts, 12 

c. Failure To Pay Debts Assumed, 13 

d. Set-Off or Counterclaim, 13 

7. Breach of Partnership Agreement, 13 

8. Action for Agreed Salary, 14 

9. Torts, 14 

10. Parties, 15 

11. Pleadings, 15 

12. Trial and Subsequent Proceedings, 16 

13. Provisional Remedies, 17 

B. Suits in Equity, 17 

1. Generally, 17 

2. Specific Perfornvance, 18 

3. Injunction, 18 

C. Proceedings for Dissolution, Accounting and Settlement, 

18 

1. In What Forum, 19 

a. At Law, 19 

b. In Equity, 20 

c. • Probate Court, 23 

d. Bankruptcy Court,. 23 

e. Admiralty Courts, 23 

f. Justice's Court, 24 

2. Place of Bringing Suit, 24 

3. Parties, 24 

,, Vol. XXI 



! PABTNEB8EIP 

a. Who May Maintain Suit, 24 
(I.) Partners, 24 

(II.) Transferee, Assignee or Mortgagee, etc., 25 
(III.) Personal Representative of Deceased 

Partner, 25 
(IV.) Heirs, Legatees or Devisees of Deceased 

Partner, 26 
(V.) Creditor, 27 

b. Necessary and Proper Parties, 27 
(I.) Generally, 27 

(II.) Partners and Their Representatives, 28 
(III.) Transferee, Assignee or Mortgagee, etc., 29 
(IV.) Creditors, 29 

c. Change in Parties Pendente Lite, 30 

4. Process and Appearance, 30 

5. Provisional Remedies, 30 

a. Attachment, 30 

b. Sequestration, 31 

c. Arrest, 31 

d. Injunction, 31 

e. Receiver, 32 

6. Pleadings, 34 

a. B«7Z or Com/plaint, 3^ 

(I.) i?'orm awd Sufficiency, 34 
(II.) Joinder of Causes, 36 
(III.} Prater, 37 
(IV.) Amendmew*, 38 

b. Defensive Pleadings, 38 
(L) Generally, 38 

(II,) Set-Off, Counterclaim, and Recoupment, 

38 
(III.) Cross-Bill, 39 

7. Issues, Proof and Variance, 40 

8. Dismissal of Bill, 41 

9. fj-wi?, 42 

a. /wrj/ Tm?, 42 

b. Disposition of Matters in Bar, ^ 

10. Reference To Take Account, 43 

a. In General, 43 

b. Form of Report, 43 

c. Effect of Report, 44 

11. Determination and Decree, 44 

12. Costs, 46 

II. ACTIONS OB PROCEEDINGS BETWEEN PABTNEBS AND 
THIRD PERSONS, 47 

A. Juriaddction and Venue, 47 
Vol. XXI 



PARTNERSHIP 3 

Bf. Attachment, 48 

1. Of Firm Property, 48 

a. For What Claims, 48 

b. Grounds for Attachment, 49 

2. Of Individual Property for Partnership Debt, 50 

3. Affidavit, 50 

4. BoMd, 50 

5. Writ of Attachment, 50 

a. Form and Contents, 50 

b. Levy, 51 

c. Quashal or Vacation of Writ, 51 

C. Garnishment, 51 

D. Parties^ 52 

1. Generally, 52 

2. J.ciio«s Sx Contractu, 55 

a. Plaintiffs, 55 

(I.) Z« General, 55 

(II.) ?7pow Assigned Claim, 56 

(III.) JBi/ Indorsee, 57 

(IV.) W/i-ere CZaim Severed, 57 

(V.) Partner as Trustee, 58 

(VI.) Contracts in Name of Partner, 58 

b. Defendants, 58 

(I.) Z« General, 58 

(II.) /OTMf <md Several Liability, 59 

(III.) Assumption by Partner of Firm Indebt- 
edness, 60 

(IV.) Contracts Made With Individual Mem- 
ber, 60 

3. Actions Ex Delicto, 60 

a. Plaintiffs, 60 

b. Defendants, 61 

4. W'/tere Commom ilfem&ers, 62 

5. Changes in the Firm Before Suit, 63 

a. Dissolution in General, 63 

b. AdrnmioTO o/ iV^ew Partner, 65 

6. Bankruptcy or Inadvenoy, 65 

7. Change in the Firm Pendente Lite, 66 

a. In General, 66 

b. Bankruptcy or Insolvency, 67 

8. Objections as to Parties, 67 

a. In General, 67 

b. TTawer of Defect, 68 
B, Process, 68 

1. Form o/ Process, 68 

2. Service, 69 

▼ol. 



PABTNEBSHIP 

3. Beturn, 71 

4. Amendments, 71 

F. Appearance, 71 

1. In General, 71 

2. Waiver of Defects, 72 

G. Pleading, 72 

1. Declaration, Complaint or Petition, 72 

a. ^orm of, 72 

b. Contents, 72 

(I.) Existence of Partnership, 72 

(A.) Necessity of Alleging, 72 
(B.) Su-fficiency of Allegation, 74 

(II.) N amies of Partners; 74 

(III.) Nature and Purpose of Partnership, 75 

(IV.) Allegation of Filing Certificate of Ficti- 
tious Name, 75 

(V.) Prayer, 76 

2. Piea or Answer, 76 

a. Denial of Partnership, 76 

b. Denial of Liability, 77 

c. Filing Certificate of Fictitious Name, 11 

d. Separate Pleas hy Partners, 78 

3. BepUcation or Beply, 78 
, 4. Fen^cafo'om, 78 

5. AmeTidmew^s, 78 

H. Issues, Proof and Variance, 79 

1. Existence of Partnership, 79 

2. As fo Liability, 80 
I. TmZ, 81 

1. Separate Trials, 81 

2. Dismissal, Discontinuance and Nonsuit, 81 

3. Province of Court and Jury, 82 

4. Instructions, 83 
J. Judgment, 83 

1. % Default, S3 

2. By Confession, 84 

3. i?'orm awd Sufficiency, 84 

a. Conformity to Pleadings and Proof, 84 

b. As ^0 Names of Parties, 84 
(I.) Generally, 84 

(II.) A/ier Dissolution, 86 

c. joiwi oMd Several, 86 
K. Enforcement of Judgment, 89 

1. Against What Property, 89 
Vol. XXI 



PAETNEBSHIP 5 

a. In General, 89 

b. Homestead and Exemptions, 90 

2. Writ of Execution, 92 

a. Generally, 92 

b. Form and Sufficiency of Writ, 93 

c. Levy, 93 

(I.) Manner of Making, 93 

(II.) Effect of Levy on Title and Possession, 94 . 

(IJI.) Sale of Partner's Interest, 96 

3. Subsequent Proceedings Against Partner Not Served, 

97 

4. Accounting to Judgment Creditor or Execution Pur- 

chaser, 97 

5. Remedies of Partners Not Parties Defendant, 98 

6. Injunction Against Enforcement, 98 
L. Appeal and Error, 99 

in. ACTIONS BY OR AGAINST SURVIVING PARTNERS OR 
REPRESENTATIVES OF DECEASED PARTNERS, 100 

A. By and Against Whom, 100 

1. At Common Law, 100 

2. In Equity, 102 

3. Statutory or Code Provisions, 102 

a. In General, 102 

b. Joint and Several Liability, 102 

c. Bond by Surviving Partner, 103 

d. Where Partner Not Administrator of Firm As- 

sets, 104 

e. Probate Authorization To Sue, 104 

4i. In Actions Between Survivor and Deceased's Repre- 
sentatives, 104 

B. Pleadings, 104 

1. Complaint or Declaration, 104 

2. Replication or Reply,. 106 

3. Amendments, 106 

C. Judgment, 106 

IV, LIMITED PARTNERSfflPS, 106 

A. Actions by or Against Limited Partnerships, 106 

1. Parties, 106 

2. Pleadings, 107 

3. Judgment, 107 

B, Actions by or Between Special and General Partners, 108 

Vol. XXI 



PABTNEBSHIP 



V. JOINT ADVENTURES, 108 



B. 



Actions or Suits Between Parties to, 108 

1. Nature of Bemedy, 108 

2. Parties, 109 

3. Pleading, 109 

Actions iy or Against Third Persons, 110 

CBOSS-BEFEBENCES: 



Account and Accounting; 
Associations ; 
Bankruptcy Proceedings ; 
Beneficial Associations ; 
Declaration and Complaint; 
Equity Jurisdiction and 
Procedure ; 



Joinder of Actions; 
Joint Stock Companies; 
Judgments ; 
Judgments and Decrees, 

Enforcement of; 
Loan Associations. 



For forms in addition to those found in this article, see 9 Standaed 
Peoc. 623, 633, 930, et seq. 

For further references and cross-references, see the index to this 
work and the cross-references throughout this article. 

I. ACTIONS OR SUITS BETWEEN PARTNERS OR THEIR 
REPRESENTATIVES. — A. Actions at Law. — 1. Transactions 
Involving an Account. — a. Generally. — Except to the extent that 
the common law action of account may be still available,^ the general 
rule is that one partner cannot sue his coparlaier,^ nor may the repre- 



1. See infra, I, C, and the title 
"Account and Accounting." 

2. Ala. — Merrill v. Smith, 158 Ala. 
186, 48 So. 495; Broda v. Greenwald, 6ff 
Ala. 538. Ark. — King v. Moore, J2 Ark. 
469, 82 S. W. 494 (partner cannot re- 
cover for services rendered to the part- 
nership by his minor, son); fiuyet Vi 
Meador, 24 Ark. ISl. Cfal; — Ferem v. 
Olson, 169 Pae. 386; Dukea V. KeTIoggv 
127 Cal. 563, 60 Pae". 44; Fisher p. 
Sweet, 67 Cal. 228, T Pae. 657; Eos9 
V. Cornell, 45 Cal. 133. Colo; — ^Mason 
V. Sieglitz, 22 Colo. 320, 44 Pae. 588. 
Conn. — Cole v. Fowler, 68 Conn. 450, 
36 Atl. 807; Beach v. -Hotehkiss, 2 
Conn. 425, 428. Del. — Bobinson v. 
Green's Admr., 5 Harr. 115. Pla. — ^Wills 
V. Andrews, 75 So. 618; White v. Boss, 
35 Fla. 377, 17 So. 640. Ga.— Mfller 
V. Freeman, 111 Ga. 654, 36 S. E. 961, 
51 L. B. A. 504; Panlk v. Creech, 8 
Ga. App. 738, 70 S. E. 145. lU.— Bowzer 

Vol. ZXI 



V. Stoughton, 119 HI. 47, 9 N. E. 208; 
Hanks V. Baber, 53 HI. 292. Ind. 
Thomas c.HoIIingsworth, 181 Ind. 411, 
103 jsr. E. *40; Adams V. Shewalter, 139 
Ind. 178, 38 N. E 607. la.— Hansen 
V. Morris, 87 Iowa 303, 54 N. W. 223; 
Thompson v. Smith, 82 Iowa 598, 48 
N-WT-gHS. Kan.— Palm v. Poponoe, 60- 
Kan. 297, 56 Pae. 480; Clarke v. Mills, 
36 Kan, 393, 13 Pae. 569; Pettingill 
V. Jones, 28 .Kan. 749. Ky. — ^Lawrence 
«..Grark, 9 Bana 257, 35 Am. Dee. 133; 
Pritcliard v. Ford, 1 J. J. Marsh. 543. 
Ba; — ^Eeddiok v. White, 46 La, Ann. 
119"8, 15 Bo. 487; McNair v. Gourrier, 
40 La. Ann. 353, 4 So. 310. Me.— Pray 
V. Mitchell, 60 Me. 430; Farrar v Pear- 
son, 59 Me. 561, 8 Am. Bep. 439. Md. 
Gusdorff V. Schleisner, 85 Md. 360. 37 
Atl. 170; McSherry v. Brooks, 46 Md. 
103. Mass.— Tyne v. Thayer, 8 Allen 
391; Fanninsr »■ Chadwick, 3 Pick. 420 
15 Am. Dec. 233. Mich.— Cookes v 



PARTNERSHIP 



sentative of a deceased partner sue or be sued by the surviving part- 
ners ^ at law in respect of any matter involving the partnership account, 
until the partnership affairs are adjusted, either by a judicial* account- 



Lymperis, 178 Mieh. 299. 144 N. W. 
514; Miner v. Lorman, 56 MicS. 212, 
22 N. W. 265. Miss. — Morgan v. Nunes. 
54 Miss. 308; Bonnaffe v. Fennor, 6 
Smed. & M. 212, 4'j Am. Dee. 278. Mo. 
Willis V. Barron, 143 Mo. 450, 45 S. 
W. 289, 65 Am. St. Eep. 673; Johnson 
V. Ewaia, 82 Mo. App. 276. Mont. 
Croft V. Bain, 49 Mont. 484, 143 Pae. 
960; McMahon v. Thornton, 4 Mont. 
46, 1 Pac. 724. Nelj. — Dorwart v. Ball, 
71 Neb. 173, 98 N. W. 652, 8 Ann. 
Cas. 766; Lord v. Peaks, 41 Neb. 891, 
60 N. W. 353. Nev. — Wicks v. Lipp- 
man, 13 Nev. 499. N. H. — Ordiorne v. 
Woodman, 39 N. H. 541; Towle v. 
Meserve, 38 N. H. 9. N. J. — Davis v. 
Minch, 80 N. J. L. 214, 76 Atl. 328. 
N. J. — McCabe v. Sinclair, 66 N. J. 
Eq. 24, 58 Atl. 412; Hill v. Beach, 12 
N. J. Eq. 31. N. M.— Willey v. Ren- 
ner, 8 N. M. 641, 45 Pae. 1132. N. Y. 
Arnold v. Arnold, 90 N. Y. 580; Smith 
17. Fitchett, 56 Hun 473, 10 N. Y. Supp. 
459, 31 N. Y. St. 606. N. C— Ledford 
V. Emerson, 140 N. C. 288, 52 S. E. 
641, 4 L. E. A. (N. S.) 130, 6 Ann. 
Cas. 107; Newby v. Harrell, 99 N. C. 
149, 5 S. E. 284, 6 Am. St. Eep. 503. 
N. D. — Devore v. Woodruff, 1 N. D. 
143, 45 N. W. 701. Ohio. — Kunneke v. 
Mapel, 60 Ohio St. 1, 53 N. E. 259. 
Okla.— Nation v. Savely, 168 Pac. 805; 
Baughman v. Hebard, 166 Pae. 88; Cobb 
V. Martin, 32 Okla. 588. 123 Pac. 422. 
Ore. — Li Sai Cheuk v. Lee Lung, 79 
Ore. 563, 146 Pac. 94, 156 Pac. 254; 
McDonald v. Holmes, 22 Ore. 212, 29 
Pac. 735. Pa. — Kutz v. Dreibelbis, 126 
Pa. 335, 17 Atl. 609; Crow v. Green, 
111 Pa. 637, 5 Atl. 23; In re Ainey's 
Appeal, 2 Penny. 192. E. I. — ^Dowling 
V. Clarke, 13 E. I. 134. S. 0.— Huff- 
man V. Huffman, 63 S. C. 1, 40 S. E. 
963. Utah. — Jennings v. Pratt, 19 Utah 
129, 56 Pac. 951. Vt.— Beede v. Eraser, 
66 Vt. 114, 28 Atl. 880, 44 Am. St. 
Eep. 824; Spear v. Newell, 13 Vt. 288. 
Va. — Summerson v^ Donovan, 110 Va. 
657, 66 S. E. 822, 19 Ann. Cas. 253; 
Wright V. Michie, 6 Gratt. (47 Va.) 
354. Wash. — Stevens v. Baiker, 1 Wash. 
Ter. 315. Wis. — Schmidt v. Mertes, 145 
Wis. 468, 130 N. W. 474; Blakely v. 
Smock, 96 Wis. 611, 71 N. W. 1052. 
Eng. — Brierly v. Cripps, 7 Car. & P, 
709, 32 B. 0. L. 833. 



[a] Eeason. — "Until such final set- 
tlement, the general rule is that the 
firm and not the individual partner is 
the debtor; and in such case it can- 
not be said correctly that there is a 
debt due from one partner to the 
other." Sprout v. Crowley, 30 Wis. 
187. To same effect see the following 
cases: King v. Moore, 72 Ark. 469, 82 
S. W. 494; Price v. Drew, 18 Ela. 
670. 

[b] The real test to determine 
whether one partner may sue another 
at law is not solely whether the action 
can be tried without going into the 
partnership accounts, but whether the 
defendant has bound himself personally 
to the plaintiff. Paulk v. Creech, 8 
Ga. App. 738, 70 S. E. 145. 

[e] By statute assumpsit is a proper 
remedy for the settlement of accounts 
where only two partners are involved. 
Mickle V. Peet, 43 Conn. 65. 

3. Ala. — Calvert v. Marlow, 18 Ala. 
67, 6 Ala. 337. la.— Stanberry v. Cat 
tell, 55 Iowa 617, 8 N. W. 478. Kan, 
Palm V. Poponoe, 60 Kan. 297, 56 Pac 
480. Md.— Bruns v. Heise, 101 Md. 
163, 60 Atl. 604. N. H.— Harris v. Har- 
ris, 39 N. H. 45. Okla.— Cobb v. Mar. 
tin, 32 Okla. 588, 123 Pac. 422. 

[a] Claim Against Estate. — The 
claim of a surviving partner for ad- 
vances to the partnership should not 
be presented to the administrator of 
the deceased partner for allowance un- 
til the partnership affairs are wound 
up; and it may be presented at any 
time within ten months after the part- 
nership affairs are settled, and, if re- 
jected, suit may be brought on it at 
any timie within three months after its 
rejection. Gleason v. White, 34 Cal. 
258. 

As to actions between third persons 
and surviving partners or their repre- 
sentatives, see infra, III. 

4. Cal. — ^Barnstead v. Empire Min. 
Co., 5 Cal. 299. Colo. — Robinson v. 
Compher, 13 Colo. App. 343, 57 Pae. 
754. Ga. — Elliott v. Deason, 64 Ga. 63. 
HI. — Newman v. Tichenor, 88 111. App. 
1. Ind. — Page v. Thompson, 33 Ind. 
137. La. — Martin v. Seabaugh, 128 La. 
442, 54 So. 935. Md.— Corner v. Gil- 
man, 53 Md. 364. Mass.— Wilby v. 

Vol. XXI 



8 



PARTNERSHIP 



ing, or by an agreement reached by the partners.^ The fact that the 
partnership between the parties has been dissolved does not change 
the rule.* 

An action at law will not lie for contribution for advances or loans 
made to the firm or for money paid or debts settled by a partner out 
of his private funds, before a final settlement of the partnership af- 
fairs.' And the same is true of an action by a partner to recover* his 
share of the partnership profits,* or for a partial division of the firm 



Phinney, 15 Mass. 116. N. Y.— Fer- 
guson V. Baker, 116 N. Y. 257, 22 N. E. 
400. 

As to actions for dissolution, account- 
ing and settlement of a partnership, see 
infra, I, G. 

5. Ala. — Pope V. Eandolph, 13 Ala. 
214. Ga.— Elliott v. Deason,' 64 Ga. 63. 
111.— Hanks v. Baber, 53 111. 292; 
Aldrich v. Mathias, 167 111. App. 589. 
Ind. — Douthit v. Douthit, 133 Ind. 26, 
32 N. E. 715; Warring v. Hill, 89' Ind. 
497. La. — Jenkins v. Howard, 21 La. 
Ann. 597. Me. — Pray v. Mitchell, 60 
Me. 430. Mass. — Fanning v. Ohadwiek, 
3 Pick. 420, 15 Am. Dec. 233; Wilby 
V. Phinney, 15 Mass. 116. N. Y.— Fer- 
guson V. Baker, 116 N. Y. 257, 22 
N. E. 400; Covert v. Henneberger, 53 
How. Pr. 1; Head v. King, 33 Misc. 
89, 67 N. Y. Supp. 141. Tex.— Beeves 
V. Whit© (Tex. Civ. App.), 161 8. W. 
43. Wash. — Kilbourn v. Bathbun, 91 
Wash. 121, 157 Pac. 457. 

6. Ala. — Philips V. Lockhart, 1 Ala. 
521. Ind. — Lang v. Oppenheim, 96 Ind. 
47. K J. — Davis v. Mineh, 80 N. J. 
L. 214, 76 Atl. 328; Gulick v. Gulick, 
14 N. J. L. 578. N. Y.— Attwater v. 
Fowler, 1 Hall 180. Ore.— McDonald 
V. Holmes, 22 Ore. 212, 29 Pac. 735. 
Pa. — Murray v. Herriek, 171 Pa. 21, 32 
Atl. 1125; Leidy v. Messinger, 71 Pa. 
177. R. I.— Bowling v. Clarke, 13 E. L 
134. 

7. Ark. — Johnson v. Peck, 58 Ark. 
580, 25 S. W. 865. Conn.— Cole v. 
Fowler, 68 Conn. 450, 36 Atl. 807; 
Bishop V. Bishop, 54 Conn. 232, 6 Atl. 
426; Mickle v. Peet, 43 Conn. 65. Fla. 
Price V. Drew, 18 Fla. 670. Ga. — El- 
liott V. Deason, 64 Ga. 63. Idaho. 
Haskius v. Curran, 4 Idaho 573, 43 
Pac. 559. lU.— Hartzell v. Murray, 224 
HI. 377, 79 N. E. 674. Ind.— Crossley 
V. Taylor, 83 Ind. 337; Coleman v. Cole- 
man, 78 Ind. 344. Ky. — Kelley v. Kam- 
sey, 176 Ky. 584, 195 S. W. 1111; War- 
ring V. Arthur, 98 Ky. 34, 32 S. W. 
221, 17 Ky. L. Eep. 605; Lawrence v. 

Vol. XXI 



Clark, 9 Dana 257, 35 Am. Dec. 133. 
La. — Eeddick v. White, '46 La. Ann. 
1198, 15 So. 487; Hennegin v. Wil- 
coxon, 13 La. Ann. 576. Md. — Eruns 
V. Heise, 101 Md. 163, 60 Atl. 604. Mass. 
Starbuck v. Shaw, 10 Gray 492. Mo. 
Bond V. Bemis, 55 Mo. 524; Morin v. 
Martin's Admr., 25 Mo. 360; Eoss v. 
Carson, 32 Mo. App. 148. N. J. — Davis 
V. Minch, 80 N. J. L. 214, 76 Atl. 
328;. Sieghortner v. Weissenborn, 20 N. 
J. Eq. 172. N. y. — Crater v. Bininger, 
45 N. Y. 545; Bouton v. Bouton, 40 
How. Pr. 217. Ore. — McDonald v. 
Holmes, 22 Ore. 212, 29 Pac. 735. Pa. 
Murray v. Herriek, 171 Pa. 21, 32 AtL 
1125; Holbert v. Herriek, 171 Pa. 25, 
32 Atl. 1125; Crow v. Green, 111 Pa. 
637, 5 Atl. 23; Leidy v. Messinger, 71 
Pa. 177. Tex. — Merriwether v. Harde- 
man, 51 Tex. 436; Lockhart v. Lytle, 
47 Tex. 452; Danforth v. Levin (Tex. 
Civ. App.), 156 S. W. 569. Va.— Sum- 
merson v. Donovan, 110 Va. 657, 66 S. 
E. 822, 19 Ann. Cas. 253. Eng.— Eich- 
ardson v. Bank of England, 4 Myl. & 
C. 165, 8 L. J. Ch. (N. S.) 1, 2 Jur. 
(O. S.) 911, 41 Eng. Eeprint 65. 

[a] An exception to this general 
rule prevails in some states. See Clarke 
V. Mills, 36 Kan. 393, 13 Pac. 569, 
and infra, this section. 

Such issues to be determined in ac- 
tion for accounting, see infra, I, C. 

As to advances to partner as an in- 
dividual, see infra, I, A, 6, a. 

8. Ala.— Merrill v. Smith, 158 Ala. 
186, 48 So. 495. Ind.— Douthit v. 
Douthit, 133 Ind. 26, 32 N. E. 715. 
Md.— Morgart v. Smouse, 103 Md. 463! 
63 Atl. 1070, 115 Am. St. Eep. 367! 
Mass.— Eyder v. Wilcox, 103 Mass. 24- 
GomersaU v. Gomersall, 14 Allen 6o' 
Mont.— Boehme v. Fitzgerald, 43 Mont! 
226, 115 Pac. 413. Compare McCor- 
mick V. Largey, 1 Mont. 158, wherein 
the court sustained an action for the 
recovery of a certain sum as the share 
of the partnership profits as the de- 
fendant's answer did not deny that 
such profits were made. N. Y.— Glover 



PABTNEBSHIP 9 

assets," or for damages for the loss of profits," or neglect of partnership 
business.^^ 

But after a final and complete accounting is had, an action at law 
is the proper remedy to obtain the payment of the ascertained bal- 
ance,i2 and this is true even where the precise sum is not specified if it 
is easily capable of reduction to a certainty.^^ In some jurisdictions, 
there must be an express promise of the defendant to pay this bal- 
ance -j^* generally, however, no such express promise is considered neces- 
sary, but a promise is implied from the circumstances.^^ And in one 
jurisdiction, at least, an action of assumpsit will lie, to recover a final 
balance of a partnership account without a settlement of accounts or a 
promise to pay, in all cases in which the rendition of the judgment 
will be an entire termination of the partnership transactions, so that 
no further cause of action can grow out of them.^° And in some states, 
where only a money judgment is sought^ and the account is simple 
and all the partnership affairs settled so that nothing remains but to 



V. Tuck, 24 Wend. 153; Vickery v. 
Stemm, 140 N. Y. Supp. 1007. Ohio. 
Oglesby v. Thompson, 59 Ohio St. 60, 
51 N. E. 878. 

9. Kruschke v. Stefan, 83 Wis. 373, 
53 N. W. 679. 

10. Buckmaster v. Gowen, 81 111. 
153. 

11. Eyder v. Wilcox, 103 Mass. 24; 
Capen i;. Barrows, 1 Gray (Mass.) 376. 

12. Ala. — Pope V. Randolph, 13 Ala. 
214; McGehee v. Dougherty, 10 Ala. 
863; Clark v. Clark, 4 Port. 9. Colo. 
Bean v. Gregg, 7 Colo. 499, 4 Pac. 903. 
Ga. — ^Benton v. Hunter, 119 Ga. 381, 
46 S. E. 414; Moore v. Stone, 50 Ga. 
157. 111. — Ridgway v. Grant, 17 111. 
117; Rotramel v. Pord, 169 111. App. 7. 
la. — Thompson v. Smith, 82 Iowa 598, 
48 N. W. 988; Wycoff v. Purnell, 10 
Iowa 832. Mass. — Robinson v. Wil- 
liams, 8 Mete. 454. Miss. — Hunt v. 
Morris, 44 Miss. 314; Lesley v. Rosson, 
39 Miss. 368, 77 Am. Dec. 679; Sturges 
V. Swift, 32 Miss. 239. Mo. — Brewer 
V. Ewartz, 83 Mo. App. 451. Ohio. 
Masters v. Freeman, 17 Ohio St. 323. 
Va. — Waggoner v. Gray's Admr., 2 Hen. 
& M. (12 Va.) 603. Wfe. — Schmidt v. 
Mertes, 145 Wis. 468, 130 N. W. 474. 
Eng. — Rackstraw v. Imber, 1 Holt 368, 
3 E. C. L. 149; Poster v. AUanson, 2 
T. E. 479, 100 Eng. Reprint 258. 

[a] Balances struck preparatory to 
a ESutlement are not sufficient. They 
must be final to support an action at 
law. IT. H. — Harris v. Harris, 39 N. H. 
45. Pa. — In re Ainey's Appeal, 2 
Penny. 192. Tex. — McKay v. Overton, 
65 Tex. 82. 



Kemedy in equity where the existence 
of fraud or mistake in securing the 
account is alleged, see infra, I, C, 1, b. 

13. Ark. — Bailey v. Starke, 6 Ark. 
191. Ga.— Pool V. Perdue, 44 Ga. 454; 
Paulk V. Creech, 8 Ga. App. 738, 70 
S. E. 145. Ind. — Thompson v. Lowe, 
111 Ind. 272, 12 N. E. 476. 

14. Belanger. v. Dana, 52 Hun 39, 4 
N. Y. Supp. 776, 22 N. Y. St. 218; 
Lasky v. Coverdale, 84 Misc. 34, 145 
N. Y. Supp. 994. See Halsted v. 
Schmelzel, 17 Johns. (N. Y.) 80. 

[a] Where the ascertained balance 
has been converted into a promissory 
note, an action thereon will lie. Aid- 
rich V. Mathias, 167 111. App. 589; First 
Nat. Bank of Champlain v. Wood, 128 
N. Y. 35, 27 N. E. 1020. 

15. Ala. — McGehee v. Dougherty, 10 
Ala. 863. Cal.— Ross v. Cornell, 45 
Cal. 133. Colo. — Bean v. Gregg, 7 Colo. 
499, 4 Pac. 903. Del. — Robinson v. 
Green's Admr., 5 Harr. 115. Fla. — Price 
V. Drew, 18 Fla. 670. 111.— Purvines v. 
Champion, 67 HI. 459. la.— WycoflE 
V. Purnell, 10 Iowa 332. Me. — Lane v. 
Tyler, 49 Me. 252. Mass.— Wilby v. 
Phinney, 15 Mass. 116. N. J. — Jaques 
V. Hulit, 16 N. J. L. 38. Vt.— Spear v, 
Newell, 13 Vt. 288. Wash.— Stevens 
V. Baker, 1 Wash. Ter. 315. Wis. — Rose 
V. Bradley, 91 Wis. 619, 65 N. W. 509. 

16. Wheeler v. Wheeler, 111 Mass. 
247; Williams v. Henshaw, 11 Pick. 
(Mass.) 79, 23 Am. Dee. 366; Wilby V. 
Phinney, 15 Mass. 116. See Dorwart V, 
Ball, 71 Neb. 173, 98 N. W. 652, 8 
Ann. Cas. 766. 

Vol. XXZ 



10 



PABTNEBSSIP 



determine the amount due the partners, an action at law is maintain- 
able." 

b. Pleading Such Matters Defensively. — In an action upon an 
individual demand of one partner against another, the defendant can- 
not set up as a counterclaim matters arising out of partnership transac- 
tions before there has been an accounting and a balance found due 
to the defendant after the liquidation of all the indebtedness of the 
firm.^^ It has, however, been held to the contrary where the partner- 
ship has been dissolved,'^ or where the plaintiff and defendant are 
the only members of the firm.^" And it would seem that partnership 
transactions might be used as a set-off or counterclaim if they be other- 
wise proper for that purpose, whenever an action at law could be 
maintained upon, them.^^ And where an equitable defense may be 
made to an action at law, the defendant may by setting forth facts 
showing an equitable necessity therefor, ask for an accounting of the 
partnership business before being required to adjust the non-partner- 
ship transaction.^^ 

2. Transactions Not Involving an Account. — One partner may 
maintain any action at law against a co-partner which does not in- 
volve the consideration and settlement of the partnership accounts.^* 



17. Kan. — Clarke v. Mills, 36 Kan. 
393, 13 Pac. 569; Pettingill v. Jones, 
28 Kan. 749. Mich. — See "Wheeler v. 
Arnold, 30 Mich. 304. But see Miner 
V. Lorman, 56 Mich. 212, 22 N. W. 
265. Neh. — See Dorwart v. Ball, 71 
Neb. 173, 98 N. W. 652, 8 Ann. Gas. 
766. N. C. — See Ledford v. Emerson, 
140 N. C. 288, 52 S. E. 641, 4 L. B. A. 
(N. 8.) 130, 6 Ann. Gas. 107. UtaJi.— 
See Mills v. Gray, 167 Pac. 358. 

Action, at law on account, see infra, 
I, C, and the title "Account and 
Accounting." 

18. Cal. — Case v. Maxey, 6 Gal. 276. 
111. — Commons v. Snow, 194 111. App. 
569; George v. Pfeil, 158 111. App. 261. 
Mich. — Eandall v. Baird, 66 Mich. 312, 
33 N. W. 506; Gardiner v. Fargo, 58 
Mich. 72, 24 N. W. 655; Elder's Appeal, 
39 Mich. 474. Hum. — Little v. Simonds, 
46 Minn. 380, 49 N. W. 186. Mo. 
Berthold v. O'Hara, 121 Mo. 88, 25 S. 
W. 845; Leabo v. Eenshaw, 61 Mo. 292; 
Finney v. Turner, 10 Mo; 207. N. H. 
Ordiorne v. Woodman, 39 N. H. 541; 
Harris v. Harris, 39 N. H. 45. N. J. 
Eeim v. Bisainger, 75 N. J. L. 289, 68 
Atl. 88. N. C— Love v. Ehyiie, 86 N. G. 
576. Tex. — See Eeeves v. White (Tex. 
Civ. App.), 161 S. W. 43. 

But see Mills v. Carrier, 30 S. C. 
617, 9 S. Ei 350, 741, where a counter- 
claim for an alleged balance arising' 
from an unsettled partnership was held 
an action on contract. 

Vol. XXI 



Set-off of individual claims, see infra, 
I, A, 6, d. 

Set-off in actions for accounting, see 
infra, I, G, 6, b, (II). 

19. Irish V. Snelson, 16 Ind. 365. 
[a] Plea to be good must show a 

balance due the defendant growing out 
of the entire partnership transactions. 
Hendry v. Hendry, 32 Ind. 349. 

20. Eeeves v. White (Tex. Civ. 
App.), 161 S. W. 43. 

21. As to when an action at law 
may be maintained in partnership trans- 
actions, see supra, 1, A, 1, a, and infra 
I, G, 1, a. 

22. Foulks V. Ehodes, 12 Nev. 225, 
in case of insolvency of plaintiff. 

[a] Cross-Bill. — In a law action upon 
promissory notes, the defendant, if his 
defense at law is not adequate or prac- 
tical and involves the settlement of 
partnership accounts, may file a cross- 
bill in equity to procure the data 
necessary to justly determine the issues 
of the action at law. Jones v. Skites, 
85 Ore. 554, 167 Pac. 505. As to right 
to interpose cross-bill in action at law, 
generally, see 6 Standard Proc. 268. 

23. Ala. — Eobinson v. Bullock, 58 
Ala. 618; Scott v. Campbell, 30 Ala. 
728. 111. — Tichenor v. Newman, 186 
HI. 264, 57 N. E. 826; Wells v. Car- 
penter, 65 111. 447; Lintner v. Millikin, 
47 111. 178; Vennum v. Palmer, 123 
111. App. 619. Me. — Lane v. Tyler, 49 
Me. 252. Mich.— Cook v. Canny, 96 



PARTNERSHIP 



11 



3. Single Unadjusted or Specially Segregated Item. — Where the 
partnership relation has been terminated and settled except as to a 
single item, an action at law may be maintained by a partner for a bal- 
ance due by reason of this item,^* and the same rule is applied where 
the partners, by agreement have segregated some item from the gen-, 
eral partnership business and aceount.^^ 

4. Partnership Limited to a Single Transaction. — "Where the part- 
nership is limited to a single transaction or venture'which has been com- 
pleted, an action at law may be maintained by one partner against 
another for the amount alleged to be due him by reason of the transac- 
tion.^^ 



Mich. 398, 55 N. W. 987; Carpenter 
V. Greenop, 74 Mich. 664, 42 N. W. 
276, 16 Am. St. Eep. 662, 4 L. E. A. 
241. Mo. — Eussell v. Grimes, 46 Mo. 
410. N. Y. — Ferguson v. Baker, 116 N. 
Y. 257, 22 N. E. 400; Esdaile v. Wuy- 
tack, 25 Abb. N. C. 474, 11 N. Y. 
Supp. 421, 33 N". Y. St. 145; Mulligan 
V. Kraus, 88 Misc. 538, 151 N.'Y. Supp. 
401. Tex. — McKay v. Overton, 65 Tex. 
82. Vt. — Beede v. Eraser, 66 Vt. 114, 
28 Atl. 880, 44 Am. St. Eep. 824. Wis. 
Edwards v. Eemington, 51 Wis. 336, 8 
N. W. 193. 

[a] Wheie a person is defrauded 
into buying an interest in a firm, he 
may affirm the contract of partnership 
and sue for damages caused by the 
fraud in its procurement, such right 
not' being dependent upon an account- 
ing. 111. — Vennum v. Palmer, 123 111. 
App. 619. Ind. — Cohoon v. Eisher, 146 
Ind. 583, 44 N. E. 664, 45 N. E. 787, 
36 L. E. A. 193. Mo.— Pickett v. 
Wren, 187 Mo. App. 83, 174 S. W. 
156, fact that no pecuniary loss was 
suffered by plaintiff is immaterial. As 
to right to maintain a suit for the 
rescission of such a contract, see infra, 
I, B, 3. 

Non-partnership transactions, see in- 
fra, I, A, 6. 

24. Colo. — Mason v. Sieglitz, 22 Colo. 
320, 44 Pac. 588. 111. — Purvines v. 
Champion, 67 HI. 459. Mass. — Shat- 
tuck V. Lawson, 10 Gray 405; Eannilig 
V. Chadwicik, 3 Pick. 420, 15 Am. Dee. 
233, two unadjusted items. Mich. 
Cookes V. Lymperis, 178 Mich. 299, 144 
N W 514. Mo. — Bambrick v. Simms, 
132 Mo. 48, 33 S. W. 445; Buckner v. 
Eies, 34 Mo. 357; Johnson v, Ewald, 
82 Mo. App. 276. Neb. — Dorwart v. 
Ball, 71 Neb. 173, 98 N. W. 652, 8 
Ann. Cas. 766. N. H. — Gibson v. Moore, 
6 N. H. 547. Tex. — Hutchinson v. Mur- 
ray (Tex. Civ. App.), 169 8 W. 640. 



25. U. S.— Van Ness v. Forrest, 8 
Cranch 30, 3 L. ed. 478; Burhans v. 
Jefferson, 76 Fed. 25, 22 C. C. A. 25. 
Ala. — Eowland v. Boozer, 10 Ala. 690". 
Fla. — Price v. Drew, 18 Fla. 670. Ga. 
Miller v. Freeman, 111 Ga. 654, 36 S. E. 
961, 51 L. E. A. 504; Paulk v. Creech, 
8 Ga. App. 738, 70 S. E. 145. Ind. 
Douthit V. Douthit, 133 Ind. 26, 32 
N. E. 715. Me. — Holyoke v. Mayo, 50 
Me. 385. Mich. — Cookes v. Lymperis, 
178 Mich. 299, 144- N. W. 514. Miss. 
Bonnaffe v. Fenner, 6 Smed. & M. 212, 
45 Am. Dec. 278. Mo.— Willis v. Bar- 
ron, 143 Mo. 450, 45 S. W. 289, 65 
Am. St. Eep. 673. N. H. — Harris v. 
Harris, 39 N. H. 45; Gibson v. Moore, 
6 N. H. 547. N. Y.— First Nat. Bank 
of Champlain v. Wood, 128 N. Y. 35, 
27 N. E. 1020; Paine v. Thacher, 25 
Wend. 450. Ohio. — Kunneke v. Mapel, 
60 Ohio St. 1, 53 N. E. 259; Neil v. 
Greenleaf, 26 Ohio St. 567. Ore.— Wil- 
son V. Wilson, 26 Ore. 251, 38 Pac. 185; 
McDonald v. Holmes, 22 Ore. 212, 29 
Pac. 735. Vt.— Beede v. Eraser, 66 Vt. 
114, 28 Atl. 880, 44 Am. St. Eep. 824; 
Collamer v. Foster, 26 Vt. 754. 

26. Ga. — Paulk v. Creech, 8 Ga. App. 
738, 70 S. E. 145. Ky.— Kelley v. Eam- 
sey, 176 Ky. 584, 195 S. W. 1111; 
Lawrence v. Clark, 9 Dana 257, 35 Am. 
Dec. 133. Neb.— See Dorwart v. Ball, 
71 Neb. 173, 98 N. W. 652, 8 Ann. 
Cas. 766. N. J. — Jaques v. Hulit, 16 
N. J. L. 38. N. C— Ledford v. Emer- 
son, 140 N. C. 288, 52 S. E. 641, 4 
L. E. A. (N. S.) 130, 6 Ann. Cas. 107. 
N. D. — Devore v. Woodruff, 1 N. D. 
143, 45 N. W. 701. Okla.— Eeiser v. 
Johnston, 166 Pac. 723. Ore. — McDon- 
ald V. Holmes, 22 Ore. 212, 29 Pac. 735. 
Pa.— Kutz V. Dreibelbis, 126 Pa. 335, 
17 Atl. 609; Knerr v. Hoffman, 65 Pa. 
126; Meason v. Kaine, 63 Pa. 335; Fin- 
lay V. Stewart, 56 Pa. 183 K. I. — Fry 
V. Potter, 12 E. 1. 542. Utah.— Coffin 

Vol. XXI 



12 



P£mNER8mP 



5. Possession of Partnership Property. — One partner cannot 
maintain an action for the exclusive possession of undivided partner- 
ship property as against the others.^^ But after the partners have by 
agreement divided the partnership property, an action at law may be 
maintained' in accordance with the agreement.^* 

6. Non-Partnership or Individual Transactions. — a. Generally. 
In suits upon contracts or transactions outside of the partnership, the 
partners stand in the same relation to each other in the courts as other 
persons.^^ And where one partner has made advances or loans to 
another partner as an individual for the purpose of forming a partner- 
ship,^" or for furthering the interests and welfare of the partnership,^^ 
the amount of such advances or loans is a personal debt of the promisor 
and is recoverable in an action at law without regard to the state of 
the partnership accounts. 

b. Preliminary Contracts. — An action at law may be maintained 
for the breach of an agreement to enter into a partnership,^^ or for 
the breach of any agreement entered into to assist in launching the 



V. McIntoBh, 9 Utah 315, 34 Pac. 247. 

Compare McLauthlin v. Smith, 166 
Mass. 131, 44 N. E. 125. 

As to joint adventures, see moie 
fully infra, V. 

27. Ark. — Allen •». Davis, 13 Ark. 
28. Cai. — Buckley v. Carlisle, 2 Cal. 
420. Ind. — Ferguson v. Day, 6 Ind. 
App. 138, 33 N. E. 213. Ky.— White- 
sides V. CollieT, 7 Dana 283. Md. — An- 
derson V. Stewart, 108 Md. 340, 70 AtL 
228. Miss. — Hoff v. Eogers, 67 Miss. 
208, 7 So. 358, 19 Am. St. Eep. 301. 
Mont.— Boehme v. Fitzgerald, 43 Mont. 
226, 115 Pac. 413. JTeb.— Cinfel v. Ma- 
lena, 67 Neb. 95, 93 N. W. 165. N. Y. 
Azel V. Betz, 2 E. D. Smith 188. Wis. 
Shields V. Fuller, 4 Wis. 102, 65 Am. 
Dee. 293. 

As to Tigbt of surviving partner to 
maintain an action for the recovery of 
partnership property, against the rep- 
resentative of the deceased partner, see 
infra, III, A, 4. 

28. Hunt V. Morris, 44 Miss. 314. 

29. Ala. — Rowland v. Boozer, 10 Ala. 
690. Ark. — Huyck v. Meador, 24 Ark. 
191. Cal.— Bull V. Coe, 77 Cal. 54, 18 
Pac. 808, 11 Am. St. Eep. 235; Arn- 
heini I?. Gordon, 21 Cal. App. 754, 132 
Pae. 840. Ga. — Miller v. Freeman, 
111 Ga. 654, 36 8. E. 961, 51 L. E. A. 
504; Paulk v. Creech, 8 Ga. App. 738, 
70 S. B. 145. III.-— Edens v. Williams, 
36 111. 252. Ind.— Crossley v. Taylor, 
83' Ind. 337. Isi.— Newberry v. Gib- 
son, 125 Iowa 575, 101 N. W. 428; 
Mullany v. Keenan, 10 Iowa. 224. La. 
Succession of Alexander, 130 La. 7, 57 

Vol. XXI 



So. 534. Me. — Marshall v. Winslow, 11 
Me. 58, 25 Am. Dee. 264. Md. — Roache 
V. Pendergast, 3 Har. & J. 33. Mo. 
Seehorn v. Hall, 130 Mo. 257, 32 S. W. 
643, 51 Am. St. Eep. 562. N. Y.— Fer- 
guson V. Baker, 116 N. Y. 257, 22 N. E. 
400. Ohio. — Manufacturing & Mercan- 
tile Co. V. Sohoolly, Tapp. 271. Ore. 
McDonald v. Holmes, 22 Ore. 212, 29 
Pac. 735. Utah. — Jennings v. Pratt, 19 
Utah 129, 56 Pac. 951. Wis.— George 
V. Benjamin, 100 Wis. 622, 76 N. W. 
619, 69 Am. St. Eep. 963; Edwards v. 
Eemington, 51 Wis. 336, 8 N. W. 193. 
Transactions not involving an ac- 
counting, see supra, I, A, 2. 

30. Idaho. — Haskins v. Curran. 4 
Idaho 573, 43 Pac. 559. lU.— Hartzell 
V. Murray, 224 HI. 377, 79 N. E. 674. 
Mass. — Wetherbee v. Potter, 99 Mass. 
354. Vt. — CoUamer v. Foster, 26 Vt. 
754. Wis. — Sprout v. Crowley, 30 Wis. 
187. 

31. Cal.— Bull V. Cos, 77 Cal. 54, 18 
Pac. 808, 11 Am. St. Eep. 235. Mass. 
Wetherbee v. Potter, 99 Mass. 354; 
Chamberlain v. Walker, 10 Allen 429. 
Va. — Wright v. Miehie, 6 Gratt. (47 
Va.) 354. Wis. — Edwards v. Eeming- 
ton, 51 Wis. 336, 8 N. W. 193; Sprout 
V. Crowley, 30 Wis. 187. 

But as to advances to the partner- 
ship, see supra, I, A, 1, a. 

32. Cal.— Prince v. Lamb, 128 Cal. 
120, 60 Pac. 689; Powell v. Maguire, 43 
Cal. 11; Taylor v. Nelson, 26 Cal. App. 
681, 147 Pae. 1189. Ga.— Lane v. 
Lodge, 139 Ga. 93, 76 S. E. 874; Miller 
V. Freeman, 111 Ga. 654, 36 8. E. 961, 



PARTNERSHIP 



13 



partnership,*^ without regard to the state of the partnership account. 

c. Failure To Pay Debts Assumed. — "Where, upon the sale of a 
partner's interest in the firm, the purchasers assume the payment of 
the firm obligations, upon their failure to pay such debts, the seller 
may maintain an action against them upon the contract,^* unless the 
payment was to be made out of the firm assets.'" 

d. Set-off or Counterclaim. — In an action between partners upon 
a non-partnership or individual transaction the defendant may use 
as a counterclaim or set-off any other individual claim against the 
plaintiff not based upon an unsettled partnership which is otherwise 
a proper subject of set-off or counterclaim.^" 

7. Breach of Partnership Agreement.'^ — Where one partner vio- 
lates an express stipulation in the partnership articles, an action at 
law to recover the damages may be brought against him by his co- 
partner,'^ where the damages, if recovered, will belong to the plain- 



51 L. E. A. 504; Mann v. Bowen, 85 
Ga. 616, 11 S. E. 862. HI.— Clark v. 
Truitt, 183 111. 239, 55 N. E. 683; Buck- 
master V. Gowen, 81 111. 153; Wilson 
V. Campbell, 10 111. 383. Ind.— Child 
V. Swain, 69 Ind. 230. Mass. — Williams 
V. Henshaw, 11 Pick. 79, 22 Am. Dec. 
366. Miss. — Terry v. Carter, 25 Miss. 
168. Mo.— Byrd v. Fox, 8 Mo. 574. 
N. Y.— Eeed v. McConnell, 133 N. Y. 
425, 31 N. E. 22; Manny v. Burke, 174 
App. Div. 654, 160 N. Y. Supp. 879. 
Pa. — Meason v. Kaine, 63 Pa. 335. E. L 
Eastman v. Dunn, 34 B. I. 416, 83 Atl. 
1057. Wis. — ^Hill V. Palmer, 56 Wis. 
123, 14 N. W. So, 43 Am. Eep. 703. 
Breach of partnership agreement, 
see infra, I, A, 7. 

33. U. S. — Hyer v. Eichmond Trac- 
tion Co., 168 U. S. 471, 18 Sup. Ct. 
114, 42 L. ed. 547. Ga.— Miller v. Free- 
man, 111 Ga. 654, 36 S. E. 961, 51 L. 
E. A. 504; Mann v. Bowen, 85 Ga. 616, 
11 8. E. 862. Mich. — Cook v. Canny, 
96 Mich. 398, 55 N. W. 987. Miss. 
Morgan v. Nunes, 54 Miss. 308. N. HI 
^eid V. McQuesten, 61 N. H. 421; Cur- 
rier V. Eowe, 46 N. H. 72; Currier v. 
Webster, 45 N. H. 226. N. Y:- Glover 
V. Tuck, 24 Wend. 153. Ohio. — Vance 
V. Blair, 18 Ohio 532, 51 Am. Dec. 467. 
Pa.— Addams v. Tutten, 39 Pa. 447. 
Wis.— Hill- V. Palmer, 56 Wis. 123, 14 
N. W. 20, 43 Am. Eep. 703. Eng. 
Venning v. Leckie, 13 East 7, 104 Eng. 
Eeprint 267; Gale v. Leckie, 2 Stark. 
107, 3 E. C. L. 337. 

34. Ala. — Tillis v. Folmar, 145 Ala. 
176, 39 So. 913, 117 Am. St. Eep. 31; 
Hogan's Exr. v. Calvert, 21 Ala. 194. 
m.— Schmidt v. Glade, 126 111. 485, 18 
N. B. 762. Kan.— Gillen v Peters, 39 



Kan. 489, 18 Pac. 613. Md.— Martin 
v. Good, 14 Md. 398, 74 Am. Dec. 545. 
Mass. — Hunt v. Eogers, 7 Allen 469, 83 
Am. Dec. 704; Lesure v. Norris, 11 
Gush. 328. Neb. — Meyer v. Shamp, 26 
Neb. 729, 42 N. W. 757. N. Y.— Clough 
V. Hoffman, 5 Wend. 499. Ore. — Miller 
V. Bailey, 19 Ore. 539, 25 Pac. 27. 
Pa.— Appeal of Clarke, 107 Pa. 436. 
Tex. — Pope v. Hays, 19 Tex. 375. Vt. 
Beede «. I'raser, 66 Vt. 114, 28 Atl. 
880, 44 Am. St. Eep. 824; Hicks v. 
Cottrill, 25 Vt. 80. Wis.— Edwards v. 
Eemington, 51 Wis. 336, 8 N". W. 193; 
Lewis V. Woolfolk, 2 Pin. 209, 1 Chand. 
171. 

Bill in equity for specific perform- 
ance, see infra, I, B, 2. 

35. Shattuck v. Lawson, 10 Gray 
(Mass.) 405, in which ,a final settle- 
ment of the firm business must be 
shown. 

36. la. — ^Farwell v. Tyler, 5 Iowa 
535. , Ky. — Stuart v. Harmon, 24 Ky. 
L. Eep. 1829, 72 S. W. 365. Mich.— Kin- 
ney V. Eobison, 52 Mich. 389, 18 N. W. 
120. N. Y.— Merrill v. Green, 55 N. Y. 
270. Wis. — Sprout v. Crowley, 30 Wis. 
187. 

See generally the title "Set-Off, 
Counterclaim and Recoupment." 

Setting off partnership claim, see 
supra, I, A, 1, b. 

Set-off in suit for accounting, see 
infra, I, C, 6, b, (II). 

37. Breach of preliminary agree>- 
ment, see supra, I, A, 6, b. 

38. Ala. — Eobinson v. Bullock, 58 
Ala. 618, failure to furnish logs for 
mill. Ga. — Lane v. Lodge, 139 Ga. 93, 
76 S. E. 874; Miller v. Freeman, 111 
Ga. 654, 36 S. E. 961, 51 L. E. A. 

Vol. XXI 



14 



PABTNEBSHIP 



tifif as an individual and not to the partnership.^^ Thus one partner 
may maintain an action at law against another for the breach of an 
agreement to contribute to the capital stock of the partnership.*" 

Premature Withdrawal. —A withdrawal from the partnership by one 
partner in violation of the partnership agreement gives the others a 
right to maintain an action against him for such breach.*^ 

8. Action for Agreed Salary. — One partner may maintain an 
action to 'recover for his salary earned in the management or employ 
of the partnership where there is an agreement to pay him a salary,*^ 
unless the salary is based upon the profits earned by the partnership.*^ 

9. Torts. — One partner may maintain an action at law against 
another for damages due to the latter 's tortious interference with the 
former's rights either as an individual/* or as a partner,*^ as for*^ 



504. m. — Newman v. Tichenorj 88 111. 
App. 1. Ind. — Ellison V. Chapman, 7 
Blaekf. 224. Ky. — Thomas v. Pyke, 4 
Bibb 418. Md. — Wadsworth v. Man- 
ning, 4 Md. 59. Mass. — Byder v. Wil- 
cox, 103 Mass. 24. Miss. — Morgan v. 
Nunes, 54 Miss. 308. Mo.— Whitehill 
V. Sohickle, 43 Mo. 537. N. Y.— Glover 
V. Tuck, 24 Wend. 153; Duncan v. Lyon, 
3 Johns. Ch. 351, 8 Am. Dec. 513; 
Madge v. Puig, 12 Hun 15. Ohio. 
Vance v. Blair, 18 Ohio 532, 51 Am. 
Dec. 467. 

39. Miller v. Freeman, 111 Ga. 654, 
36 S. E. 961, 51 L. E. A. 504; Eyder 
V. Wilcox, 103 Mass. 24. 

40. Ala. — Scott V. Campbell, 30 Ala. 
728. Ga. — Miller v. Freeman, 111 Ga. 
654, 36 S. E. 961, 51 L. B. A. 504. 
Kan. — Truitt v. Baird, 12 Kan. 420. 
Me.— Wright V. Eastman, 44 Me. 220; 
Marshall v., Winslow, 11 Me. 58, 25 
Am. Dec. 264. ]V[ass.^Wetherbee v. 
Potter, 99 Mass. 354; Williams v. 
Henshaw, 11 Pick. 79, 22 Am. Dec. 366. 
Mich.— Cook V. Canny, 96 Mich. 398, 
55 N. W. 987. Miss. — Morgan v. Nunes, 
54 Miss. 308.- Vt. — CoUamer v. Foster, 
26 Vt. 754. . • 

41. U. S. — Karrick v. Hannaman, 
168 U. S. 328, 18 Sup. Ct. 135, 42 
L. ed. 484; Kebart v. Arkin, 232 Fed. 
454, 146 C. 0. A. 448. Md.— Wads- 
worth V. Manning, 4 Md. 59. Mass. 
Dunham v. Gillis, 8 Mass. 462. Mich. 
Solomon v. Kirkwood, 55 Mich. 256, 
21 N. W. 336. N. Y.— Bagley v. Smith, 
10 N. T. 489, 19 How. Pr. 1, 61 Am. 
Dec. 756, Seld. Notes 109; Sandias v. 
Mustacchi, 153 App. Div. 810, 138 N. 
Y. Supp. 875. Pa.— McCollum v. Car- 
lucci, 206 Pa. 312, 55 Atl. 979, 98 Am. 
St. Bep. 780; Belter v. Morton, 96 Pa. 
229; Addams v. Tutton, 39 Pa. 447. 

Vol. XXI 



Wash. — Andreopulos v. Peresteredes, 95 
Wash. 282, 163 Pac. 770. 

42. Ind.— McBride v. Stradley, 103 
lud. 465, 2 N. E. 358; Lassiter v. Jack- 
man, 88 Ind. 118. La. — See Alexander 
V. Alexander, 13 La. Ann. 588, wherein 
the court allowed one partner to re- 
cover for his services rendered to the 
partnership as a clerk, saying that 
"the duties of plaintiff as clerk and 
general agent were totally distinct 
from those as partner" in the firm 
business. Mass. — Eyder v. Wilcox, 103 
Mass. 24. Mich. — Godfrey v. White, 43 
Mich. 171, 5 N. W. 243. Mo.— Gaston 
V. Kellogg, 91 Mo. 104, 3 S. W. 589. 
N. Y.— Paine v. Thaeher, 25 Wend. 
450. 

43. Kan.— O'Brien v. Smith, 42 Kan. 
49, 21 Pac. 784. Ky.— Stone v. Mat- 
tingly, 14 Ky. L. Rep. 113, 19 S. W. 
402. Me.— Wright v. Troop, 70 Me. 
346. N. Y. — Lasky v. Coverdale, 84 
Misc. 34, 145 N. Y. Supp. 994. 

44. See infra, this note. 

[a] Injury to partner's individual 
propeirty used in partnership business. 
Haller v. Willamowicz, 23 Ark. 566- 
Newby v. Harrell, 99 N. C. 149. 5 s' 
E. 284, 6 Am. St. Bep. 503. 

45. See infra, this note. 

[a] Where one partner wrongfully 
and maliciously causes an attachment 
in his own name to be sued out and 
levied on the partnership business, and 
ouists his co-partner -.from the busi- 
ness, an action for damages may be 
maintained by the partner thus ousted 
against the wrongdoer. Newsom v Pit- 
man, 98 Ala. 526, 12 So. 412. 

46. Montjoys v. Holden, Litt. Sel 
Cas. (Ky.) 447, 12 Am. Dee. 331; 
Newby v. Harrell, 99 N. C. 149, 5 S. E 
284, 6 Am. St. Bep. 503. 



PARTNERSHIP 



15 



the destruction, or conversion,*^ of the partnership property. 

10. Parties. — Actions between partners are governed, as to par- 
ties by the general rules elsewhere treated.** 

11. Pleadings. — Complaint or Declaration In an action at law be- 
tween partners, involving the partnership account, plaintiff must al- 
lege facts authorizing such an aetion,^^ as that the partnership busi- 
ness has been adjusted and settled ;°'' and that the balance found was 
in the favor of the plaintiff from the defendant.'^ A complaint by a 
partner for contribution must show that there is not an existing or un- 
settled partnership between the parties,''^ and that there is nothing due 



47. N. T. — Weiss v. Weiss, 75 Misc. 
644, 133 N. Y. Supp. 1021, sale of the 
partnership property in hostility to and 
in denial of the partnership. N. C. 
Newhy v. Harrell, 99 N. C. 149, 5 S. E. 
284, 6 Am. St. Eep. 503. Can. — Doupe 
V. Stewart, 28 IT. C. Q. B. 192; Eath- 
well 17. Eathwell, 26 XJ. C. Q. B. 179. 

48. See the title "Parties," and 
other titles dealing with specific kinds 
and classes of actions. 

[a] Where a balaaice has been ascer- 
tained to be due to a partner from one 
of several co-partners, only the part- 
ner owing such balance is a proper 
party defendant. McGehee v. Dougher- 
ty, 10 Ala. 863. 

[b] After the dissolution of the 
partnership, the remaining partners can- 
not sue jointly for the recovery of 
money alleged to be due from the with- 
drawing partner. Ross v. Cornell, 45 
Cal. 133; Masters v. Freeman, 17 Ohio 
St. 323. 

[c] Separate Action for Illegal 
Withdrawal. — Where one of three or 
more partners withdraws from the firm 
in violation of the partnership agree- 
ment, each of the co-partners may main- 
tain an action against him for the 
fcreach without joining thp' other part- 
ner. Dunham v. Gillis, 8 Mass. 462. 

[d] Action for Contribution. — In an 
action against a solvent partner for 
contribution for the payment of a 
partnership debt, the plaintiff need not 
join the other partners where it ap- 
pears that they were insolvent or non- 
resident. Scott V. Bryan, 96 N. C. 289, 

3 S. E. 235. 

[e] An action for the breach of a 
partnership agreement may be brought 
against any one of the offending part- 
ners if the obligation of the broken 
covenant is several. Thomas v. Pyke, 

4 Bibb (Ky.) 418. 

49. Wben action at law may be 



brought, see swpra, 1, A, 1, a. 

50. Cal.— Dukes v. Kellogg, 127 Cal. 
563, 60 Pae. 44. Colo.— Bean v. Gregg, 
7 Colo. 499, 4 Pac. 903. Del. — Downs 
V. Short, 6 Penne. 264, 66 Atl. 365; 
Eobinson v. Green 'a Admr., 5 Harr. 115. 
HI.— Smith, V. Eiddell, 87 111. 165. Ind. 
Lang V. Oppenheim, 96 Ind. 47; Krutz 
V. Craig, 53 Ind. 561; Cobble v. Tom- 
linson, 50 Ind. 550; Powell v. Bennett, 
4 Ind. App. 112, 29 N. E. 926. la. 
Wycoff V. Purnell, 10 Iowa 332. Ky. 
Warring v. Arthur, 98 Ky. 34, 32 S. W. 
221. Mass. — Gomersall v. Gomersall, 14 
Allen 60. Mont. — Boehme v. Fitzgerald, 
43 Mont. 226, 115 Pae. 413; Eiddell 
V. Eamsey, 31 Mont. 386, 78 Pac. 597. 
N. Y. — Schulsinger v. Blau, 84 App. 
Div. 390, 82 N". Y. Supp. 686; Covert 
V. Henneberger, 53 How. Pr. 1; Mackey 
V. Auer, 8 Hun 180. E. I. — Dowling v. 
Clarke, 13 E. I. 134. Tex.— Glass 
V. Wiles, 14 S. W. 225. Wash.— Stevens 
V. Baker, 1 Wash. Ter. 315. 

[a] An allegation as to the amount 
of the profits plaintiff claims is due him 
is not suflicient in the absence of an 
allegation of an accounting or that the 
partners agreed upon such amount. 
Schulsinger v. Blau, 84 App. Div. 390, 
82 N. Y. Supp.. 686. 

51. Del. — Downs v. Short, 6 Penne. 
264, 66 Atl. 365; Eobinson v. Green's 
Admr., 5 Harr. 115. lU. — Smith v. Eid- 
dell, 87 111. 165. Ind.— Krutz v. Craig, 
53 Ind. 561; Powell v. Bennett. 4 Ind. 
App. 112, 29 N. E. 926. la.— Wycoff 
V. Purnell, 10 Iowa 332. Ky. — War- 
rin V. Arthur, 98 Ky. 34, 32 S. W. 221. 
Mass. — Gomersall v. Gomersall, 14 Al- 
len 60. N. Y. — Mackey v. Auer, 8 Hun 
180; Covert v. Henneberger, 53 How. 
Pr. 1. Wash. — Stevens v. Baker, 1 
Wash. Ter. 315. 

52. .Johnson v. Peck, 58 Ark. 580, 
25 S. W. 865; Houston v. Brown, 23 
Ark. 333; Lang v.. Oppenheim, 96 Ind. 
47; Dale v. Thomas, 67 Ind. 570. 

Vol. XXI 



16 



PARTNERSHIP 



to the firm from the plaintiff ;^' and it must show the amount he paid 
out."* A complaint for breach of the contract of partnership must 
set forth the breach relied on.°= Where plaintiff relies on the breach 
of a contract to assume and pay all the partnership debts, he need not 
allege that the defendant had notice of the debtj^" or of the payment 
of the debt by the plaintiff."^ A complaint for conversion of partner- 
ship assets must show the facts in accordance with the general rules 
elsewhere treated.^* A complaint against one partner for maliciously 
attaching the firm property, need not allege the grounds of the at- 
tachment,"^ or the nature and character of the debt.^" 

Defensive Pleading. —A party must by some appropriate pleading 
urge the objection that the action involves partnership transactions 
upon which an action at law is not maintainable without a previous 
accounting.^^ A demurrer will not lie on this ground unless the dec- 
laration or complaint affirmatively shows that a partnership account 
is involved.*^ 

Statutes dispensing with proof of allegations of partnership in ac- 
tions by, or against alleged partners, unless the denial thereof is sworn 
to,"^ are not applicable to a suit by one individual against another, 
charging a partnership relation between them."* 

12. Trial and Subsequent Proceedings. — The rules governing the 
trial and proceedings thereafter in actions generally apply in actions 
between partners.''" Where law and equity are administered in the 



53. Johnson v. Peck, 58 Ark. 580, 25 
S. W. 865; Lang v. Oppenheim, 96 Ind. 
47. 

54. Coleman v. Coleman, 78 Ind. 344. 

55. Belter v. Morton, 96 Pa. 229. 
Action on contract generally, see 

the title "Implied and Express Agree- 
ments." . 

56. Clough t;. Hoffman, 5 Wend. (N. 
Y.) 499. 

57. Clough V. Hoffman, 5 Wend. (N. 
Y.) 499. 

58. See the title "Trover and Con- 
version." 

[a] A complaint for collecting and 
converting assets of the partnership, 
should allege (1) the dates when the 
collections were made (McCament v. 
Gray, 6 Blackf. [Ind.] 233), and (2) 
the amount. Davis v. Wimberly, 86 Ga. 
46, 12 S. E. 208. 

[b] Demand need not be alleged. 
Snyder v. Baber, 74 Ind. 47. 

59. NewBom v. Pitman, 98 Ala. 526, 
12 So. 412, since a partner cannot at- 
tach the firm property. 

60. Newsom v. Pitman, 98 Ala. 526, 
12 So. 412. 

61. Mills V. Gray (Utah), 167 Pac. 
358, otherwise he waives it. See 
Foulks V. Rhodes, 12 Nev. 22'5. 

[a] On the plea of the general issue, 

Vol. XXI 



the defendant may avail himself of the 
defense that the parties were partners 
in an unsettled partnership. Noble V. 
Martin, 7 Mart. N. S. (La.) 282. 

[b] It is too late after trial to ob- 
ject that the case was one in which 
an action at law could not, be main- 
tained. Smith V. Allen, 18 Johns. (N. 
Y.) 245. 

Pleading partnership transactions as 
set-off or counterclaim to individual 
claim, see supra, I, A, 1, b. 

62. Manufacturing & Mercantile Co. 
V. Schoolly, Tapp. (Ohio) 271. 

63. See infra, II, G, 2, a, and II, 
H, 1. 

64. Short V. Taylor, 137 Mo. 517, 38 
S. W. 952, 59 Am. St. Rep. 508. 

65. See generally the title "Trial," 
and numerous other titles dealing with 
particular phases of proceedings at and 
after trial. 

[a] Questions of Law and Fact. 
(1) Whether a written promise to pay 
given by one partner to his co-partner 
relates to a partnership transaction so 
as to prevent the maintenance of an 
action at law thereon, is a question for 
the jury. Matheny v. Lees, 193 111. 
App. 503. (2) When the question 
whether a partnership exists is a mat- 
ter of doubt, to be decided by infer- 



PARTNERSHIP 



17 



same tribunal, an action for the recovery of a balance due the plaintiff 
cannot be dismissed merely because the relief to which he is entitled 
may be in equity for an accounting.*^ 

13. Provisional Rem,edies. — Arrest. —The remedy of arrest on 
mesne process is not available to one partner against another for al- 
leged fraudulent misappropriation of the - partnership assets.*^ But 
in an action at law on an individual or other transaction on which such 
an action is proper, the remedy of arrest may be resorted to if the 
facts otherwise justify it.®* 

Attaclunent. — In some jurisdictions one partner cannot attach the 
firm property in an action against the other, ®^ at least, if the action 
involves the unsettled partnership account."" In others, if the case 
be otherwise a proper one, attachment of such property is permissible.^^ 

B. Suits in Equity. — 1. Generally. — Suits in equity between 
partners are of course governed by the general principles and rules 
elsewhere treated.''' For a settlement and account of partnership 
transactions resort must ordinarily be had to equity.''^ 

Where a person has been induced to become a partner through the 
fraud of another, equity will aid him to rescind the contract.''* 

One partner may resort to eqmty to establish the partnership char- 
acter of property acquired or held by the other partner in his own 
name/* 



ences to be drawn from all the evi- 
dence, it is one of fact for the jury. 
Nation v. Savely (Okla.), 168 Pao. 
805. 

[b] Under a general denial of eon- 
version of partnership property, it may 
be shown that the money received was 
expended for partnership purposes. 
Hackney v. Winiams, 46 Ind. 413. 

[c] Instructions. — See Hutchinson v. 
Murray (Tex. Civ. App.), 169 S. "W". 
640, and generally the title "Instruc- 
tions." 

[d] Finding by jury conclusive that 
agreement between partners did not re- 
late to partilership transaction. Math- 
eny v. Lees, 193 111. App. 503. 

66. Schulsinger v. Blau, 84 App. 
Div. 390, 82 N. Y. Supp. 686; Mills 
V. Gray (Utah), 167 Pac. 358; Morgan 
V. Child, Cole & Co., 41 Utah 562, 128 
Pao. 521. 

67. Cal. — Soule v. Hayward, 1 Cal. 
345. La. — Hanna v. Auter, 4 Rob. 221. 
N. T.— Smith v. Small, 54 Barb. 223; 
Cary v. Williams, 1 Duer 667. 

But see Com. v. Sumner, 5 Pick. 
(Mass.) 360, and infra, I, C, 5, c. 

68. Ledford v. Emerson, 140 N. C. 
288, 52 S. B. 641, 4 L. R. A. (N. S.) 
130, 6 Ann. Cas. 107. See Com. v. 
Sumner, 5 Pick. (Mass.) 360. 

69. Newsom v. Pitman, 98 Ala. 526, 



12 So. 412. See infra, II, C, 5, a. But 
see Brinegar v. GrifBn, 2 La. Ann. 154, 
in case of a partnership in a single 
transaction. 

70. See infra, ly C, 5, a, and 
Brinegar v. GrifBn, 2 La. Ann. 154; 
Levy V. Levy, 11 La. 577. 

71. See infra, I, C, 5, a. 
Attachment by third persons, see 

infra, II, B. 

72. See the title "Equity Jurisdic- 
tion and Procedure," and numerous 
other titles dealing with particular 
phases of equity procedure. 

[a] Where one partner fraudulently 
makes a promissory note in the name 
of the firm and delivers it to a third 
person who has knowledge of the fraud, 
his copartner may maintain a bill in 
equity requiring the partner and the 
third person to cancel the note and to 
restrain the collection of it. Fuller v, 
Percival, 126 Mass. 381. 

73. See infra, I, C, 1, b. 

74. Ind. — Cohoon «. Fisher, 146 
Ind. 583, 44 N. E. 664, 45 N. E. 787, 
36 L. R. A. 193. N. J.— Powell v. Cash, 
54 N. J. Eq. 218, 34 Atl. 131. Eng. 
llawlina v. Wickham, 1 Giff. 355, 65 
Eng. Reprint 954; Pillans V. HarknesS, 
Colles 442, 1 Eng. Reprint 363. 

75. Dikia v. Likis, 187 Ala. 218, CS 

Vol. XXI 



18 



PABTNEBSHIP 



2. Specific Performance. — The contract of partnership being of 
an esseutially personal character, a court of equity will not lend its 
aid to enforce the specific performance thereof/" particularly where 
the partnership is not for a definite time, but is merely at will/' Equi- 
ty will however, where there is no adequate legal remedy, secure to a 
partner the interests in property to which, by the partnership agree- 
ment, he is entitled,'* and will, at the instance of a retiring partner, 
specifically enforce an agreement by the remaining partners or a pur- 
chaser, to pay the firm debts.'® 

3. Injunction. — One partner, under proper circumstances, may 
enjoin a copartner from violating the rights arising out of the part- 
nership,*" as by using the partnership property in a manner not author- 
ized by the contract of partnership.*^ Equity may, for a time, enjoin 
a partner from dissolving a partnership before the expiration of the 
time agreed upon, when the circumstances are such that a dissolution 
would be specially injurious.*^ But a court of equity will not lend its 
aid by injunction to one partner to exclude another partner from the 
partnership business.** 

C. Proceedings for Dissolution, Accounting and Settlement. 



So. 398; Donohoe v. Rogers, 168 Cal. 
700, 144 Pac. 958. 

76. U. S. — Hyer v. Richmond Trac- 
tion Co., 168 U. S. 471, 18 Sup. Ct. 
114, 42 L. ed. 547; Karrick v. Hanna- 
man, 168 U. S. 328, 18 Sup. Ct. 135, 42 
L. ed. 484; Marble Co. v. Ripley, 10 
Wall. 339, 19 L. ed. 955. 111.— Clark 
V. Truitt, 183 111. 239, 55 N. E. 683. 
La. — ^Levins v. Michel, 35 La. Ann. 
1121. Mass. — Somerby v. Buntin, 118 
Mass. 279, 19 Am. Rep. 459. Mich. 
Buck V. Smith, 29 Mich. 166, 18 Am. 
Rep. 84. Ohio. — Halladay v. Faurot, 8 

Ohio Dec. (Reprint) 633. Pa Meaaon 

V. Kaine, 63 Pa. 335. 

[a] Mutuality of Remedy. — Where, 
by the partnership agreement, one part- 
ner is to supply the capital, and the 
other to furnish his personal services, 
the agreement cannot be specifically 
enforced against the latter and will not 
be against the former. Karrick v. Han- 
naman, 168 U. S. 328, 18 Sup. Ct. 135, 
42 L. ed. 484. 

77. 111.— Clark v. Truitt, 183 111. 
239. 55 N. E. 683. Mass.— Somerby 
V. Buntin, 118 Mass. 279, 19 Am. Rep. 
459. Mich.— Buck v. Smith, 29 Mich. 
166, 18 Am. Rep. 84. Miss. — Whit- 
worth V. Harris, 40 Miss. 483. 

78. Somerby v. Buntin, 118 Mass. 
279, 19 Am. Rep. 459. 

79. Tillis V. Folmar, 145 Ala. 176, 
39 So. 913, 117 Am. St. Rep. 31. 

80. See infra this note. 

[a] Enjoining competing businiess 

Vol. XXI 



of same nature. La. — Levine v. Michel, 
35 La. Ann. 1121. Md.— Crownfield v. 
Phillips, 125 Md. 1, 92 Atl. 1033, Ann. 
Cas. 1916 E, 991; Norwood v. Norwood, 
4 Har. & J. 112. Ohio — Halladay v. 
Faurot, 8 Ohio Dee. (Reprint) 633. 

[b] Injunction against interference 
with performance of duties assigned to 
him by the partnership agreement. 
Marble Co. v. Ripley, 10 Wall (U. S.) 
339, 19 L. ed. 955; MUler v. O 'Boyle, 
89 Fed. 140. ' 

[c} The Use of the Firm Name for 
Private Purposes May Be Enjoined. 
Page V. Vankirk, 1 Brewst. (Pa.) 282. 

[dj A minority of the members of 
the firm may enjoin a change in the 
location of the partnership works, 
where it is fixed by the contract of 
partnership. Appeal of Jennings, 2 
Monag. (Pa.) 184, 16 Atl. 19, 2 L. E. 
A. 43. 

81. New V. Wright, 44 Miss. 202; 
Stockdale v. Ullery, 37 Pa. 486, 78 Am. 
Dec. 440, using partnership assets for 
payment of individual debts. 

[a] An insolvent partner will be 
enjoined from disposing of or appro- 
priating the effects of the partnership 
against the will of the copartner. 
Phillips V. Trezevant, 67 N. C. 370; 
Grobe v. Roup, 44 W. Va. 197, 28 S e' 
699. 

82. Solomon v. Kirkwood, 55 Mich. 
256, 21 N. W. 336. 

83. Salmon v. Salmon, 180 Ala. 252. 
60 So. 837. ' 



PARTNERSHIP 



19 



1. In What Forum. — a. At Law. — Ordinarily the only proper or 
adequate remedy for the settlement of partnership accounts is in equi- 
ty." The old common law action of account as a remedy to procure 
an accounting of partnership matters has largely fallen into disuse 
on account of the more complete and satisfactory remedy in equity.*" 
Such an action at law is still available, however, in some jurisdictions,*' 
being limited to those cases where only two partners are involved,*' 
though some statutes have extended the remedy to permit of an ac- 
count between partners irrespective of their number.** The action of 
book account is not an appropriate remedy for the purpose of closing 
a general and extensive partnership account.*' 

The adjustment of partnership affairs cannot be had in other actions 
not involving any partnership matters to which the partners or the 



84. See swpra, I, A, 1, a, and infra, 
I, C, 1, b. 

85. Conn. — Gillett v. Hall, 13 Conn. 
426; Eussell v. Green, 10 Conn. 269. 
III.— Bracken v. Kennedy 4 111. 558.. 
Mass. — Holmes v. Hunt, 122 Mass. 505, 
23 Am. Rep. 381; Bartlett v. Parks, 1 
Cush. 82; Fowle v. Kirkland, 18 Pick. 
299 (abolished by statute); Fanning 
V. Chadwick, 3 Pick. 420, 15 Am. Dec. 
233. Miss.— Hunt v. Gorden, 52 Miss. 
194. N. Y. — MeMurray v. Eawson, 3 
Hill 59. Pa. — ^Appeal of Ainey, 2 
Penny. 192. 

[a] Remedy Abandoned Altogether 
In England^ — Bovill v. Hammond, 6 
Barn. & C. 149, 13 E. C. L. 79, 9 D. & 
R. 186, 5 L. J. K. B. (O. S.) 145, 108 
Eng. Reprint 408. And see: Me. — ^Par- 
rar v. Pearson, 59 Me. 561, 8 Am. 
Rep. 439. N. Y. — ^MeMurray v. Rawson, 
3 Hill 59. Pa. — Geary v. Cunningham, 
10 Serg. & R. 230. See generally 1 
Standabd Peoc. 215. 

86. m. — ^Bonney v. Stoughton, 122 
111. 536, 13 N. E. 833, concurrent rem- 
edy. Me. — Parrar v. Pearson, 59 Me. 
561, 8 Am. Rep. 439. Md.— WUhelm v. 
Caylor, 32 Md. 151, concurrent remedy. 
Miss. — Hunt V. Gorden, 52 Miss. 194, 
concurrent remedy. N. J. — Lilliendahl 
V. Stegmair, 45 N. J. Eq. 648, 18 Atl. 
216, concurrent remedy with bill in 
equity. Pa. — McCollum v. Carlucci, 
206 Pa. 312, 55 Atl. 979, 98 Am. St. 
Rep. 780 (concurrent remedy) ; ^Knerr 
V. Hoffman, 65 Pa. 126. In re Ainey 's 
Appeal, 2 Penny. 192. B. I. — Chapman 
V. Chapman, 13 R. I. 680, concurrent 
remedy. Vt. — Stevens v. Coburn, 71 
Vt. 261, 44 Atl. 354; Park v. McGowen, 
64 Vt. 173, 23 Atl. 855; Newell v. 
Humphrey, 37 Vt. 265; Kendrick V. 



Tarbell, 27 Vt. 512; Spear «. Newell, 
13 Vt. 288 (concurrent remedy). 

87. Niles v. Williams, 24 Conn. 279; 
Gillett V. Hall, 13 Conn. 426; Beach 
V. Hotchkiss, 2 Conn. 425; Wilhelm v. 
Caylor, 32 Md. 151. And see Ports- 
mouth V. Donaldson, 32 Pa. 202, 72 Am. 
Dee. 782; Whelen v. Watmiough, 15 
Serg. & R. (Pa.) 153, wherein this 
form of action was held not to be 
maintainable by one partner against 
two, unless a joint liability to account 
was shown. 

[a] This Was the Oommon Law 
Rule.— N. Y. — Appleby v. Brown, 24 
N. Y. 143, 23 How. Pr. 207; MeMurray 
V. Rawson, 3 Hill 59. Pa. — "Whelen v. 
Watmough, 15 Serg. & R. 153. Vt. 
Stevens v. Coburn, 71 Vt. 261, 44 Atl. 
354; Poster v. Ives, 53 Vt. 458; Green 
V. Chapman, 27 Vt. 236. 

88. Bonney v. Stoughton, 122 III. 
536, 13 N. E. 833; Stevens v. Coburn, 
71 Vt. 261, 44 Atl. 354; Park v. Mc- 
Gowen, 64 Vt. 173, 23 Atl. 855; Foster 
V. Ives, 53 Vt. 458. 

[aj The law court has all the pow- 
ers of a court of chancery in such an 
action. Foster v. Ives, 53 Vt. 458; 
Hydeville Co. ■». Barnes, 37 Vt. 588; 
Green v. Chapman, 27 Vt. 236. 

[bj No action by third persons who 
are not members of the partnership is 
permitted by such statute. Green «. 
Chapman, 27 Vt. 236. 

[cj Against Personal Kepresenta^ 
tire. — The action may be brought by 
one partner against another surviving 
partner and the administrator of the 
deceased partner. Park v. McGowen, 
64 Vt. 173, 23 Atl. 855. 

89. Hydeville Co. v. Barnes, 37 Vt. 
588; Duryea v. Whitcomb, 31 Vt. 395; 
Green v. Chapman, 27 Vt. 236. 

Vol. XXI 



20 



PARTNERSHIP 



firm may have been made parties.'" 

An action of assumpsit will not lie to correct or revise a partnership 
settlement.'^ 

b. In Equity. — With the limitations pointed out in this article, 
the general rule is that proceedings which involve the settlement of 
the partnership account can only be maintained in equity.'^ When- 
ever a remedy is furnished in a court of law for the settlement and 
adjustment of a partnership, it is generally not as adequate or sat- 
isfactory as the remedy by a bill for an accounting in a court of equi- 
ty."^ The dissolution and adjustment of partnership affairs is in- 
herently a matter for the intervention of a court of equity,'* although 
a resort thereto is not necessary where the partners can adjust such 



90. Colo.— Hatch v. Fritz, 48 Colo. 
530, 111 Pac. 74. El.— Ives v. Vans- 
coyoc, 81 111. 120. Mich. — Beardslee v. 
Citizens' Commercial & Sav. Bank, 112 
Mich. 377, 70 N. W. 1027; Farwell t;. 
Chambers, 62 Mich 316, 28 N. W. 859; 
Elder's Appeal, 39 Mich. 474. N. Y. 
Lord V. Hull, 178 N". Y. 9, 70 N. E. 69, 
102 Am. St. Eep. 484. 

91. Johnson v. Wilson, 54 111. 419; 
Pfeiffer v. Bauer, 122 HI. App. 625; 
Chase v. Garvin, 19 Me. 211. 

92. See supra, I, A, 1, a; I, C, 1, a; 
and infra, I, C, 1, c, d, e, and f. 

93. Pla. — Wills V. Andrews, 75 So. 
618. Ga.— Houston v. Polk, 124 Ga. 
103, 52 S. E. 83; Epping v. Aiken, 
71 Ga. 682. 111.— Smith v. Riddell, 87 
HI. 165; Strong v. Clawson, 10 111. 
346. Ind.— Horn v. Lupton, 182 Ind. 
355, 105 N. E. 237, 106 N. E. 708; 
Adams v. Carmony, 44 Ind. App. 291, 
87 N. E. 708, 89 N. E. 327. Kan.— 
Carter v. Christie, 57 Kan. 492, 46 
Pac. 964; Anderson v. Beebe, 22 Kan. 
768. Mass. — White v. White, 169 Mass. 
52, 47 N. E. 499. Ulich — McLean v. 
McLean, 109 Mich. 258, 67 N. W. 118. 
Miss. — Whitney v, Cotten, 53 Miss. 
689; Hunt v. Gorden, 52 Miss. 194. 
Mo. — ^Bambrick v. Simms, 132 Mo. 48, 
33 S. W. 445; Ensworth v. Curd, 68 Mo. 
282 (is proper tribunal in which to 
settle the aflEairs of a copartnership 
between the living) ; Johnson v. Ewald, 
82 Mo. App. 276. N. Y.— Barclay v. 
Barrie, 209 N. Y. 40, 102 N. E. 602, 
Ann. Cas. 1913D, 1143, 47 L. E. A. 
(N. S.) 839; Watts v. Adler, 130 N. Y. 
46, 29 N. E. 13X, 3 Silv. 585; Simpson 
V. Simpson, 44 ,App. Div. 492, 60 N. 
Y. Supp. 879; Smith v. Pitchett, 56 
Hun 473, 10 N. Y. Supp. 459, 31 N, Y. 
St. 606. Ore.— Gleason v. Van Aernam, 
9 Ore. 343. S. C— Bouland v. Carpin, 
27 S. C. 235, 3 S. E. 219. Va.— Slaugh- 

Vol. XXI 



ter V. Banner, 102 Va. 270, 46 S. E. 
289. W. Va.— Ballard v. Callison, 4 
W. Va. 326. Wis.— Schmidt v. Mertes, 
145 Wis. 468, 130 N. W. 474. 

See also 8 Standakd Proc. 438. 

94. U. S.— Oteri v. Scalzo, 145 U. S. 
578, 12 Sup. Ct. 895, 36 L. ed. 824; 
Ivinson x>. Hutton, 98 U. S. 79, 25 L. 
cd. 66. Ala.— Webb v. Butler, 192 Ala. 
287, 68 So. 369, Ann. C^s. 19161), 815; 
Haynes v. Short, 88 Ala. 562, 7 So. 157; 
Burney & Co. v. Boone, 32 Ala. 486. 
Ark. — Luke v. Ehodes, 117 Ark. 600, 
176 S. W. 111. Oal.— Prince v. Lamb, 
128 Cal. 120, 60 Pac. 689; Stokes v. 
Stevens, 40 Cal. 391. Colo. — Tarabino v. 
Nicoli, 5 Colo. App. 545, 39 Pac. 362. 
Conn.— Gillett v. Hall, 13 Conn. 426. 
Fla.— White v. Eoss, 35 Fla. 377, 17 
So. 640. Oa. — Printup «. ,Fort, 40 Ga. 
276. 111.- Strong v. Clawson, 10 111. 
346; Bracken v. Kennedy, 4 III. 558; 
Aldrich ». Mathias, 167 111. App. 589. 
Ind.— Horn v. Lupton^ 182 Ind. 355, 
105 N. E. 237, 106 N. E. 708; Lesh v. 
Bailey, 49 Ind. App. 254, 95 N. E. 341. 
Md. — Bruns v. Heise, 101 Md. 163, 60 
Atl. 604. Mich. — Dunlap v. Byers, 110 
Mich. 109, 67 N. W. 1067. N. H.— Con- 
verse V. Hobbs, 64 N. H. 42, 5 Atl. 
S32. N. J. — Deveney v. Mahoney, 23 
K J. Eq. 247. N. Y.— Eickev v. Bowne, 
18 Johns. 131; Kirkwood v. Smith, 47 
Misc. 301, 95 N. Y. Supp. ■ 926. Ore. 
Marx V. Goodnough, 16 Ore. 26, 16 
Pac. 918. Va. — Jones v. Murphy, 93 
Va. 214, 24 S. E. 825. W. Va.— Daniel 
V. Gillespie, 65 W. Va. 366, 64 S. B 
254; ChJlders v. Neely, 47 W. Va 70 
34 S. E. 828, 81 Am. St. Eep. 77?' 
49 L. R. A. 468. Wis.— Schmidt v. 
Mertes, 145 Wis. 468, 130 N. W. 474. 

[a] Amoimt In Controversy. — Where 
there is a minimum limit on the juris- 
diction of equity, the matter fairly 
and bona fide in controversy between 



PABTNEBSBIP 



21 



matters themselves.'" Unless exclusive jurisdiction has been conferred 
on probate courts,** a surviving partner may be compelled to account 
as a trustee, in a court of equity, at the instance of the deceased part- 
ner's representatives,*' 

In the absence of fraud, mistake or other ground for equitable in- 
terference, a final settlement arrived at by the partners is a complete 
bar to a suit for a judicial accounting,** but where such ground exists, 
a court of equity still has jurisdiction to correct and determine the 
acfcounts.** Where one partner has been defrauded into a settlement. 



the parties, and not the amount of the 
balance ultimately struck by the mas- 
ter, is to determine the jurisdiction of 
the court. Washburn v. Washburn, 23 
Vt. 576. See generally the title "Jur- 
isdiction," for a discu'Bsion of the 
amount in controversy. 

95. 111.— Hanks v. Baber, 53 HI. 292. 
Ky. — Garnett v. WUls, 24 Ky. L. Rep. 
617, 69 S. W. 695. Mich. — ^Beardslee v. 
Citizens' Commercial & Sav. Bank, 112 
Mich. 377, 70 N. W. 1027. Wis.— Kom- 
merdahl v. Jackson, 102 Wis. 444, 78 
N. W. 742. 

96. See infra, I, C, 1, c. 

97. Fried v. Burk, 125 Md. 500, 94 
Atl. 86; Welbourn v. Kleinle, 92 Md. 
114, 48 Atl. 81; Stokes v. Stokes, 59 
Hun 431, 13 N. Y. Supp. 407, 36 N. Y. 
St. 620. 

[a J The equity jurisdiction rests 
not merely upon the doctrine concern- 
ing accounting, but upon the princi- 
ples applicable to the administration 
of trusts. Fried v. Burk, 125 Md. 500, 
94 Atl. 86. 

98. Alaska. — Pearee v. Sutherland, 

4 Alaska 120. Cal. — Wallace v. Sisson, 
98 Cal. xviii, 33 Pac. 496; Cayton v. 
Walker, 10 Cal. 450. Colo. — Gibson v. 
Glover, 3 Colo. App. 506, 34 Pac. 687. 
Fla. — Durham v. Edwards, 50 Fla. 495, 
38 So. 926. HI. — Raymond v. Vaughan, 
128 HI. 256, 21 N". E. 566, 15 Am. St. 
Rep. 112, 4 L. R. A. 440 (accounting 
must be final) ; Kellogg v. Moore, 97 
HI. 282; Correll v. Freeman, 29 111. 
App. 39. Ind. — Meredith v. Ewing, 85 
Ind. 410. Mich. — Harrison v. Dewey, 
46 Mich. 173, 9 N. W. 152; McGunn v. 
Hanlin, 29 Mich. 476. Miss.— Thorn- 
ton V. McNeill, 23 Miss. 369. Mo.— SU- 
ver V. St. Louis, I. Mt. & S. Ry. Co., 

5 Mo. App. 381, 72 Mo. 194. N. J. 
Harrison v. Farrington, 40 N. J. Eq. 
353, 3 Atl. 80. IT. Y.— Wild<) v. Jen- 
kins, 4 Paige 481; Heartt ». Corning, 
3 Paige 566. N. C. — Eaton v. Eaton, 
43 N. C. 102. Ore.— Gleason v. Van 



Aernam, 9 Ore. 343, settlement must be 
a final one. Pa. — Appeal of Iredell, 
10 Sad. 127, 13 Atl. 752. E. I.— Chap- 
man V. Chapman, 13 R. I. 680. S. C. 
Dial's Exrs. v. Rogers, 4 Desaus. 175; 
Burden v., McElmoyle, Bailey Eq. 375. 
Tex. — Merriwether v. Hardeman, 51 
Tex. 436. Wash. — Kilbourne v. Eath- 
lun, 91 Wash. 121, 157 Pac. 457. 
W. Va.— Mahnke v. Neale, 23 W. Va. 
57. Wis.— Birkett v. Hird, 55 Wis. 650, 
13 N. W. 686. 

[a I An accounting between the 
surviving partner and the representa- 
tive of the deceased partner will not 
be disturbed by a court of equity upon 
a bill filed by the heirs in the ab.sence 
of a showing that it is fraudulent or 
unfair. Valentine v. Wysor, 123 Ind. 
47, 23 N.'E. 1076, 7 L. R. A. 788. 

99. Alaska. — Pearee v. Sutherland, 
4 Alaska 120. Cal. — ^Wallace v. Sisson, 
98 Cal. xviii, 33 Pac. 496. Fla.— Dur- 
ham V. Edwards, 50 Fla. 495, 38 So. 
926. Ga.— Oliver v. House, 125 Ga. 
637, 54 S. E. 732. 111.— Ha^ks v. Baber, 
53 111. 292; Hopkins v. Watt, 13 111. 
298. Ky. — Loesser v. Loesser, 81 Ky. 
139; Waggoner v. Minter, 7 J. J. 
Marsh. 173. Me. — Holyoke v. Mayo, 
50 Me. 385; Chase v. Garvin, 19 Me. 
211. Minn.— Cobb v. Cole, 44 Minn. 
278, 46 N. W. -364. Mo.— Kammerman 
V. Wiggington, 70 Mo. App. 476; Sil- 
ver V. St. Louis, I. M. & 8. Ry. Co., 5 
Mo. App. 381, 72 Mo. 194. N. J.— Har- 
rison V. Farrington, 40 N. J. Eq. 353, 
3 Atl. 80. Pa.— Abrahams v. Hunt, 26 
Pa. 49. Wis.— Birkett v. Hird, 55 Wis. 
650, 13 N. W. 686. 

[a] A suit at the instance of a 
trustee In bankruptcy will not lie to 
judicially settle a partnership on the 
ground that the defendant fraudulently 
concealed th© assets of the partncrahip 
at the time of the settlement between 
the partners, where it appears that the 
bankrupt partner had no creditors and 
had had equal means of knowing the 

Vol. XXI 



n 



PARTNEBSSIP 



he may bring a bill for a judicial accounting, without rescinding the 
settlement or putting the defrauding partner in statu quo.^ 

Dissolution Contemplated. —Generally, a court of equity will not en- 
tertain a bill for an account, filed by one co-partner against another, 
where the bill does not contemplate a dissolution and a final settle- 
ment of the affairs of the partnership,^ but the court may do so, though 
no dissolution is prayed for, where it is necessary to conform the 
practice of the court to the wants of its suitors, and to prevent a fail- 
ure of justice;^ thus, where one partner seeks to withhold from his 
copartner the profits arising from a secret transaction,* or where one 
partner refuses to account where the agreement calls' for a settlement 
periodically,'' or where the partnership is for a term of years still 
unexpired, and one partner refuses to permit another partner to take 
part in the business from which he has been excluded,^ or where one 
partner persists in misconduct so gross as to threaten destruction to 
the interests of all.' Some jurisdictions, however, do not recognize 
the general rule and remit an accounting as a matter of course without 
a final settlement and dissolution of the firm.^ 



partnership assets. Steinfield v. Ep- 
stein, 256 Pa. 601, 100 Atl. 996. 

1. Cal.— -Wallace v. Sisson, 98 Cal. 
xviii, 33 Pac. 496. Ga.— Oliver v. 
House, 125 Ga. 637, 54 S. E. 732. W. 
Va. — Daniel v. Gillespie, 65 W. Va. 
366, 64 S. E. 254. 

But see contra, Pearee v. Sutherland, 
4 Alaska 120; Farnsworth v. Whitney, 
74 Me. 370. 

2. XT. S. — Cropper v. Coburn, 2 
Curt. 465, 6 Fed. Cas. No. 3,416. Ind. 
Valentine v. Wysor, 123 Ind. 47, 23 
N. E. 1076, 7 L. E. A. 788. N. Y. 
Lord V. Hull, 178 N. Y. 9, 70 N. E. 69, 
102 Am. St. Rep. 484. Ohio.— Gray v. 
Kerr, 46 Ohio St. 652, 23 N. B. 136. 
W. Va.— Childers v. Neely, 47 W. Va. 
70, 34 S. E. 828, 81 Am. St. Eep. 777, 49 
L. E. A. 468; Coville v. Gilman, 13 
W. Va. 314. 

["a] "The reason is, that the bal- 
ance will probably fluctuate while the 
business continues." Cropper v. Co- 
burn, 2 Curt. 465, 6 Fed. Cas. No. 3,416. 

3. U. S. — Cropper v. Coburn, 2 Curt, 
465, 6 Fed. Cas. No. 3,416. G-a.- Miller 
V. Freeman, 111 Ga. 654, 36 S. E. 961, 
51 L. R. A. 504, where articles of part- 
nership provided for annual accounting. 
N". Y.— Lord v. Hull, 178 N. Y. 9, 70 
N. E. 69, 102 Am. St. Eep. 484. And 
see Sanger v. French, 157 N. Y. 213, 
51 N. E. 979. 

[a] As where the partnership has 
proved a failure, and the partuersi are 
too numerous to be made parties to 
the action and a limited account will 

Vol. XXI 



result in justice to all. Lord v. -Hull, 
178 N. Y. 9, 70 N. E. 69, 102 Am. St. 
Eep. 484; Wallworth v. Holt, 4 Myl. & 
C. 619, 4 Jur. 814, 41 Eng. Eeprint 238. 
[b] "Extreme necessity only, how- 
ever, will justify interference without 
a dissolution." Lord v. Hull, 178 N 
Y. 9, 70 N. E. 69, 102 Am. St. Eep. 
484. ^ 

4. Lord V. Hull, 178 N. Y. 9, 70 
N. E. 69, 102 Am. St. Eep. 484. 

5. Miller v. Freeman, 111 Ga. 654 
36 S. E. 961, 51 L. E. A. 504. 

6. Hogau V. Walsh, 122 Ga. 283, 50 
S. E. 84. N. Y.— Lord v. Hull, 178 
N. Y. 9, 70 N. E. 69, 102 Am. St. Eep. 
484. Eng.— Fairthorne v. Weaton, 3 
Hare 387, 13 L. J. Ch. 263, 8 Jur. 353, 
67 Eng. Eeprint 432; Eichards v. 
Davies, 2 Buss. & M. 347, 39 Ens. 
Eeprint 427. 

7. Lord V. Hull, 178 N. Y. 9, 70 
N. E. 69, 102 Am. St. Eep. 484. 

8. Ala.— Eeilly v. Woolbert, 196 Ala. 
191, 72 So. 10; Webb v. Butler 192 
Ala. 287, 68 So. 369, Ann. Cas. 1916D, 
815. Axk. — Luke v. Rhodes, 117 Ark 
600, 176 S. W. 111. Pa.-Hudson v. 
Barrett, 1 Pars. Eq. Cas. 414. , Eng. 
Richardson v. Hastings, 7 Beav 301 
13 L. J. Ch. 129, 8 Jur. 72, 49 Eng. Re- 
print 1081; Knowles v. Haughton, 11 
Ves. Jr. 168, 32 Eng. Eeprint 1052 
(wherein the object of the accounting 
was to establish the partnership, the 
existence of which was denied by the 
defendant); Fairthorne v. Weston 3 
Hare 387, 13 L. J. Ch. 263, 8 Jur. 353, 



PAMNEnSBlP 



23 



e. Probate Court. — The statutes of some states provide that the 
copartnership affairs may be fully adjusted and settled in the probate 
court, upon the death of either partner.' These statutes are construed, 
in some jurisdictions, to give the probate court exclusive jurisdiction 
over the settlement of the affairs of the partnership," while in others, 
it is a concurrent remedy with a resort to a court of equity.^^ In the 
absence of such a statute, the only remedy is in equity.^^ 

d. Bankruptcy Court. — Although some of the partners are ad- 
judged bankrupt the partnership assets are administered by the solvent 
partners. ^^ The filing of a petition in bankruptcy by one of the part- 
ners after the commencement of a suit to settle the partnership accounts 
will not divest the jurisdiction of the first court.^* 

e. Admiralty Courts. — Courts of admiralty have no general juris- 
diction to administer relief as courts of equity,^° and cannot assume 
jurisdiction in matters of account between partners in a vessel, but 
will leave them to their remedy in equity.^" 



67 Eng. Eeprint 432. But -compar-e ear- 
lier cases holding that accounting could 
not be had without a dissolution. 
Knebell v. White, 2 Younge & C. Exch. 
15; Loscombe v. Eussell, 4 Siinons 8, 
58 Eng. Eeprint 4; Eorman v. Homfray, 
2 Ves. & B. 329, 35 Eng. Eeprint 344. 

9. U. S.— Esterly v. Eua, 122 Fed. 
609, 58 C. C. A. 548, Alaska. Ind. 
Harrah v. State ex rel. Dyer, 38 Ind. 
App. 495, 76 N. E. 443, 77 N. E. 747. 
Kan. — ^Carter v. Christie, 57 Kan. 492, 
46 Pac. 964; Anderson v. Beebe, 22 
Kan. 768. Mo. — ^Caldwell v. Hawkins, 
73 Mo. 450; Ensworth v. Curd, 68 Mo. 
282. N. H.— Scott V. Buffum, 52 N. H. 
345. N. Y. — Simpson v. Simpson, 44 
App. Div. 492, 60 N. Y. Supp. 879. 

10. Harrah v. State ex rst. Dyer, 38 
Ind. App. 495, 76 N. E. 443, 77 N. E. 
747; Caldwell v. Hawkins, 73 Mo. 450; 
Ensworth v. Curd, 68 Mo. 282. 

11. Cal.— Griggs V. Clark, 23 Cal. 
427. Kan. — Carter v. Christie, 57 Kan. 
492, 46 Pac. 964. Mich. — ^Perrin v. 
Lepper, 49 Mich. 347, 13 N. W. 768. 
N. H.— Scott V. Buffum, 52 N. H. 345. 

12. Ala. — Vincent v. Martin, 79 
Ala. 540; Eoulston v. Washington, 79 
Ala. 529. Axk. — Luke v. Ehodes, 117 
Ark. 600, 176 S. W. Ill; Choate v. 
O'Neal, 57 Ark. 299, 21 S. W. 470; 
Culley & Son v. Edwards, 44 Ark. 423, 
51 Am. Eep. 614. Cal. — Andrade v. 
Superior Court, 75 Cal. 459, 17 Pac. 531 ; 
Theller v. Such, 57 Cal. 447. la.— Fred- 
erick V. Cooper, 3 Iowa 171. La. 
Gordon v. Dick, 15 La. 33. N. Y. 
Blake v. Barnes, 63 Hun 633, 18 N. Y. 
Supp. 471, 28 Abb. N. C. 401, 45 N". Y. 



St. 130. Pa.— Wiley's Exrs., Appeal, 
84 Pa. 270. But compare Estate of 
Unruh, 13 Phila. 337, wherein it was 
held that the orphans' court had jur- 
isdiction where the surviving partner 
was the executor of the estate of the 
deceased partner. 

[a] May Compel But Not Adjust 
Account. — -While the probate court has, 
by virtue of the statute, power to 
compel the surviving partner to ac- 
count to the personal representative of 
the deceased partner, it has no power 
to settle or adjust such account. An- 
drade V. Superior Court, 75 Cal. 459, 
17 Pac. 531. 

[b] AUo wanes by Probate Court. 
Upon obtaining a decree of the court 
of equity in his favor, a surviving 
partner who h.as paid a firm debt out 
of his separate means should have it 
allowed in the probate court having 
jurisdiction over the deceased pafrt- 
ner's estate. Choate v. O'Neal, 57 Ark. 
299, 21 S. W. 470. 

13. See 3 Standaed Pboc. 993, and 
Williams v. Lane, 158 Cal. 39, 109 
Pac. 873. 

14. Williams v. Lane, 158 Cal. 39, 
109 Pac. 873. 

[a] The trustee in bankruptcy may 
be compelled to account by the solvent 
partner for partnership property, in th« 
state courts. Williams v. Lane, 158 
Cal. 39, 109 Pac. 873. 

15. See 1 Standard Pboc. 373 and 
375. 

16. Ward v. Thompson, 22 How. 
(U. S.) 330, 16 L. ed. 249; Grant v. 
Poillon, 20 How. (U. S.) 162, 15 L. ed. 

Vol. XXI 



24 



PARTNERSHIP 



f. Justice's Court." — The settlement of a partnership being an 
equitable matter, is one over which a justice of the peace has no juris- 
diction,^' and when an action of account at law is not expressly given 
him by statute, he has no jurisdiction to settle the partnership affairs 
by such an action.^* 

2. Place of Bringing Suit. — In a suit for an accounting, juris- 
diction of the court does not depend upon the location of the part- 
nership property,^" but upon the residence of the defendant partners.^^ 
Where, however, the chief purpose of an action is to compel a con- 
veyance of lands it is subject to a statute requiring actions to be 
brought where the land is situated, even though the bill also asks fop 
a dissolution and accounting of a partnership.'^ 

3. Parties. — a. Who May Maintain Suit.— (X.) Partners. —Any 
partner may maintain a bill for an accounting of the partnership 
business,'^ unless his right has been lost by his negligence or by laches 



871; Vandewater v. Mills, 19 How. 
(U. S.) 82, 15 L. ed. 554. 

17. See generally the title ' 'Justices 
of the Peace." 

18. Cal. — Rotjinson •». Compher, 13 
Colo. App. 343, 57 Pac. 754. Mo.— Ean- 
kin V. Fail-ley, 29 Mo. App. 587. N. 0. 
Love V. Ehyne, 86 N. C. 576. 

19. Eickey v. Bowne, 18 Johns. (N". 
T.) 131; Stevens v. Coburn, 71 Vt. 
261, 44 Atl. 354. 

20. Cal.— Clark v. Brown, 83 Cal. 
181, 23 Pac. 289, where it was not 
necessary to determine the interests of 
the parties in the realty. 111. — Quinn 
V. McMahan, 40 111. App. 593. Mich. 
Diinlap V. Byers, 110 Mich. 109, 67 
N. W. 1067; Godfrey r>. White, 43 
Mich. 171, 5 N. W. 243. Minn. 
Shackletou v. Kneisley, 48 Minn. 451, 
51 N. W. 470. N. Y.— Williams v. 
Williams, 83 Misc. 560, 145 N. Y. Supp. 
564. Pa. — Eshbach «. Stonaker, 1 Pa. 
Dist. 32. 

[a] "The proceeding is, Jn its es- 
sence, a personal and not a real con- 
troversy. It could hardly be claimed 
that a, partner could get an accounting 
in any state or region where lands 
were to be found, and proceed to a 
decree without personal service or ap- 
pearance, and without a personal ac- 
counting. The decree, when it reaches 
lands, does it incidentally .and its chief 
purpose is different." Godfrey v. 
White, 43 Mich. 171, 5 N. W. 243. 

[b] In Louisia,na the action should 
be at the domlcil of the partnership. 
Lobdell j;. Bushnell, 24 La. Ann. 295. 
See Brinegar v. Griffin, 2 La. Ann. 154. 

Extraterritorial Jurisdiction over 

Vol. XXI 



lands, see generally, 17 Standard Peoc. 
776, 780, 783. 

21. Ga. — Cox V. Manning, 13 Ga. 
App. 518, 79 S. E. 484. lU.— Quinn v. 
McMahan, 40 111. App. 593, Ky. 
Maude v. Rodes, 4 Dana 144. Mich. 
Godfrey v. Whitei, 43 Mich. 171, 5 
N. W. 243. N. Y.— Williams «. Wil- 
liams, 83 Misc. 560, 145 N. Y. Supp. 
564. Pa.— Eshbach v. Slonaker, 1 Pa. 
Dist. 32. 1 

[a] Where the defendant is a non- 
resident of the state, (1) the action 
may nevertheless be brought within 
the state where the business is trans» 
acted. Brinegar v. Griffin, 2 La. Ann. 
354. (2) In which event, if the statute 
requires actions against nonresidents to 
be in the county where the cause of 
action arose, the action should be in 
the county where the business is trans- 
acted. Wells V. Collins, 11 Lea (Tenn.) 
213. 

22. Falls of Neuse Mfg. Co. v. 
Brower, 105 N". C. 440, 11 S. E. 313, 
under § 190 of the Code. 

23. Webb v. Butler, 192 Ala. 287, 
68 So. 369, Ann. Oas. 1916 D, 815; 
Burney & Co. v. Boone, 32 Ala. 486. 
Ark. — Nichol v. Stewart, 36 Ark. 612. 
Cal.— Blood V. Fairbanks, 48 Cal. 171; 
Clark V. Gridley, 41 Cal. 119; Rassaert 
V. Mensch, 17 Cal. App. 637, 120 Pac. 
1072. m. — Bonney v. Stoughton, 122 
111. 536, 13 N. E. 833. Ind.— Douthit 
V. Douthit, 133 Ind. 26, 32 N. E. 715; 
Warring v. Hill, 89 Ind. 497; Meredith 
V. Ewing, 85 Ind. 410. Ky. — Broeg v. 
Pool's Admr., 22 Ky. L. Rep. 1354, 60 
S. W. 518. La. — New Orleans v. 
Gauthreaux, 32 La. Ann. 1126. Md. 
Glenn v. Hebb, 12 Gill & J. 271. Mich, 



PABTNEBSHIP 



25 



on his part,^* even after a withdrawal from the partnership.^" 

The surviving partner may under certain circumstances maintain a 
bill for an accounting against the estate of a deceased partner, accord- 
ing to some authorities,^^ but generally he cannot maintain a suit in 
equity for an accounting and settlement, since he has the legal right 
to take possession of the partnership assets and wind up its affairs.^' 

(II.) Transferee, Assignee or Mortgagee, etc. — A transferee, assignee 
or mortgagee of the share of a partner may demand an accounting to 
determine his proportionate share of the net firm property after such 
accounting.^^ 

(III.) Personal Representative of Deceased Partner. — The personal rep- 
resentative of a deceased partner may maintain a bill for an account- 
ing against the surviving partners.^^ 



Eussell V. White, 63 Mich. 4091, 29 
N. W. 865 (partner who had sold his 
interest but, by agreement, was to 
remain a partner until purchaser had 
fully paid for the interest); Near v. 
Lowe, 49 Mich. 482, 13 N. W. 825. 
Minn.— Palmer v. Tyler, 15 Minn. 106, 
failure to contribute the full amount 
agreed upon does not afEect his right. 
Miss. — Pelder v. Wall, 26 Miss. 595. 
Mo.— Eeilly v. Eeilly, 14 Mo. App. 62. 
N. J.— Sharp v. Hibbens, 42 N. J. Eq. 
543, 9 Atl. 113; I>eveney v. Mahoney, 
23 N. J. Eq. 247. N. Y.— Watts v. 
Adler, 130 N. Y. 646, 29 N. E. 131, 
3 Silv. 585, 41 N. Y. St. 325; Greenwood 
V. Brodhead, 8 Barb. 593; Maddock v. 
Steel, 68 Hun 522, 23 N. Y. Supp. 61, 
52 N. Y. St. 754, extent of interest 
immaterial. S. 0. — Jones v. Smith, 31 
S. C. 527, 10 S. E. 340. Tex. — Eische 
V. Eische, 46 Tex. Oiv. App. 23, 101 
S. W. 849. Va. — Jones v. -Murphy, 93 
Va. 214, 24 S. E. 825. 

[a] After Transfer of Property.— 
"A partner has a right to file a bill 

■for a settlement of the affairs of the 
firm, and a due application of the 
assets, and connected with that set- 
tlement to impeach any disposition of 
th« property, even after an absolute 
transfer by himself to his co^partner 
of the property charged with the 
debts." Ketchum v. Durkee, Hoffm. 
Ch. (N. Y.) 538. 

[b] A partner -who had received his 
share of the profits and had no capital 
invested in the firm held not entitled 
to an accounting. Brenner v. Brenner, 
9 Pa. Dist. 511. 

24. Ky.— Garnett v. WUls, 24 Ky. 
L. Eep. 617, 69 8. W. 695. Md.— Glenn 
v. Hebb, 12 Gill & J. 271. Mass.- Lamb 
V. Kowan, 83 Miss. 45, 35 So. 427, 690. 



Ohio.— Gray v. Ken, 46 Ohio St. 652, 
23 N. E. 136. Pa.— Eyre v. Lesher, 14 
Montg. Co. Eep. 189. Vt.— Spear v. 
Newell, 13 Vt. 288. 

25, Colo. — Tarabino v, Nieoli, 5 
Colo. App. 545, 39 Pac. 362. La.— Grid- 
ley V. Conner, 2 La. Ann. 87. N. J. 
Sharp V. Hibbens, 42 N. J. Eq. 543, 
9 AtL 113. 

29. Mass. — Burnside v. Merrick, 4 
Meto. 537, assignee, as the representa- 
tive of the insolvent surviving partner, 
may maintain the bill for an account- 
ing against the estate of the deceased 
partner. Miss. — Felder v. Wall, 26 
Miss. 595. Vt.— King v. White, 63 Vt. 
158, 21 Atl. 535, 25 Am. St. Eep. 752. 

27. Gleeson v. Costella (Ariz.), 138 
Pac. 544; McGay v. Joy, 70 Cal. 581, 
11 Pac. 832. 

28. U. S.— Fourth National Bank v. 
New Orleans & C. E. Co., 11 Wall. 624, 
20 L. ed. 82. Ala. — ^Farley, Spear & 
Co. V. Moog, 79 Ala. 148, 58 Am. Eep. 
585. Ark. — Nichol v. Stewart, 36 Ark. 
612. Cal.— Wright v. Ward, 65 Cal. 525, 
4 Pac. 534; MUler v. Brigham, 50 Cal. 
615. 111.— Gerard v. Bates, 124 111. 150, 
16 N. E. 258, 7 Am. St. Eep. 350; 
Strong V. Clawson, 10 111. 346. Ind. 
Smith V. Evans, 37 Ind. 526, mort- 
gagee. N. M. — De Manderfield v. Field, 
7 N. M. 17, 32 Pac. 146. N. Y.— Stokes 
v. Stokes, 59 Hun 431, 13 N. Y. Supp. 
407, 36 N. Y. St. 620. Ore.— Marx v. 
Goodnough, 16 Ore. 26, 16 Pac. 918. 
Pa.— McGlensey v. Cox, 1 Phila. 387. 
R. I. — Stiueas v. Pierce, 13 E. I. 452. 
W. Va.— Ballard v. Callison, 4 W. Va. 
326. Wis. — Eommerdahl v. Jackson, 102 
Wis. 444, 78 N. W. 742; Driggs v. 
Morely, 2 Pin. 403, 2 Chand. 59. 

29. U. S.— Denver v. Eoane, 99 U. 
S. 355, 25 L. ed. 476. Ala.— Word v. 

Vol. xsa 



26 



PAMNBMm-p 



(IV.) Heirs, Legatees or Devisees of Deceased. Partner. —Although, gen- 
erally, the heirs, legatees, or devisees of a deceased partner have no 
standing in court against the surviving partner for an accounting,^" 
even for the sole purpose of compelling him to account and settle with 
the personal representative of the deceased partner,^^ exceptional cir- 
cumstancs may exist in the particular case rendering it proper for 
such persons to maintain the suit.'^ But it has been held that the 



Word, 90 Ala. 81, 7 So. 412; Farley, 
Spear & Co. v Moog, 79 Ala. 148, 58 
Am. Eep. 585; Costley «. Towles, 46 
Ala. 660. Ark. — Tate v. Tate, 35 Ark. 
289. D. C. — Consaul v. Cummings, 24 
App. Gas. 36. Ind. — Valentine v. Wysor, 
123 Ind. 47, 23 N. E. 1076, 7 L. E. A. 
788; Skillen v. Jonefi, 44 Ind. 136. 
la. — Hutton v. Laws, 55 Iowa 710, 8 
N. W. 642. Me.^Warren v. Warren, 
56 Me. 360. Md.— Pried v. Burke, 125 
Md. 500, 94 Atl. 86; Eosenzweig v. 
Thompson, 66 Md. 593, 8 Atl. 659; 
Glenn v. Hebb, 12 Gill & J. 271. Mass. 
Freeman v. Freeman, 136 Mass. 260; 
Dyer v. Clark, 5 Mete. 562, 39 Am. Dec. 
697, survivor must account to the rep- 
resentative after the partnership is 
liquidated. N. Y. — Murray v. Mum- 
ford, 6 Cow. 441; Hyer v. Burdett, 1 
Edw. Ch. 325; Eeinhardt v. Eeinhardt, 
134 App. Div. 440, 119 N. Y. Supp. 285; 
Secor V. Tradesmen's N,at. Bank, 92 
App. Div. 294, 87 N. Y. Supp. 181; 
Krumbeck v. Clancy, 41 App. Div. 397, 
58 N. Y. Supp. 727; Blak« v. Barnes, 
63 Hun 633, 18 N. Y'. Supp. 471, 28 
A.bb. N. C. 401, 45 N. Y. St. 130. N. C. 
Pitt V. Moore, 99 N. C. 85, 5 S. E. 389, 
6 Am. St. Eep. 489. Ohio. — Ludlow's 
Heirs v. Cooper's Devisees, 4 Ohio St. 1. 
Pa. — In rs Dampf 's Appeal, 106 Pa. 72. 
Tenn.— Watkins v. Fakes, 5 Heisk. 185. 
Vt. — Newell v. Humphrey, 37 Vt. 265, 
action of account at law. Eng. — ^Betje- 
mann v. Betjemann, 64 L. J. Ch. 641, 
(1895) 2 Ch. 474, 12 Eep. 455, 73 L. T. 
N. S. 2, 44» W. E. 182. 

[a] Single Favorable Item. — The 
representatives cannot call the survivor 
to account for any single item which 
might appear to the credit of the de- 
ceased. Walmsley v. Mendelsohn, 31 
La. Ann. 152. 

[b] Rule Stated. — "The law gov- 
erning the relations of the administra- 
tor of a deceased partner to the sur- 
viving partners * * * is well settled. 
Primarily, the administrator has noth- 
ing to do with either the partnership 
assets or the partnership debts. The 
surviving partners take the exclusive 

Vol. xxt 



legal title to the former for the pay- 
ment of the latter. If any assets re- 
main in their hands after payment of 
all liabilities, they should account to 
the administrator for the distributive 
share of the deceased, which then be- 
comes, for the first time, assets in his 
hands as administrator. If, however, 
there is an unreasonable delay on the 
part of the surviving partners in 
closing the affairs of the partnership, 
or if they are wasting the partnership 
property, it is then the right and duty 
of the administrator, if the partner- 
ship creditors remain inactive, to file 
a bill * * * calling the survivors to 
account and praying for * * * the 
complete adjustment of the partnership 
affairs. ' ' Miller v. Jones, 39 111. 54. 

[c] Administrator De Bonis Non. 
Worthy o. Brower, 93 N. C. 344. 

Joinder of heirs, see 12 Standabd 
Proc. 990. 

30. See 12 Standabd Pkoc. 990, and 
the following cases: Ark. — Tate v. 
Tate, 35 Ark. 289. Ind.— Valentine 
V. Wysor, 123 Ind. 47, 23 N. E. 1076, 7 
L. E. A. 788. la.— Hutton v. Laws, 
55 Iowa 710, 8 N. W. 642. Ky. 
Hackett v. State Bank & Trust Co., 
155 Ky. 392, 159 S. W. 952. Me.— War- 
ren V. Warren, 56 Me. 360. Md. — Eos- 
enzweig V. Thompson, 66 Md. 593, 8 
Atl. 659. N. Y.— Hyer v. Burdett, 1 
Edw. Ch. 325; Blake v. Barnes, 63 Hun 
633, 18 N. Y. Supp. 471, 28 Abb. N. C. 
401, 45 N. Y. St. 130. Ohio.— Ludlow's 
Heirs v. Cooper's Devisees, 4' Ohio St. 1. 
Va.—In re Dampf 's Appeal, 106 Pa. 72. 
Wis.— Blakely v. Smock, 96 Wis. 611, 
71 N. W. 1052. Eng.— Travis v. Milne, 
9 Hare 141, 150, 20 L. J. Ch. 665. 68 
Eng. Eeprint 449; Stainton v. The 
Carron Co., 18 Beav. 146, 157, 23 L. J. 
Ch. 299, 18 Jur. 137, 2 Eq. E. 466, 2 
W. E. 176, 52 Eng. Eeprint 58. 

31. Harrison v. Eighter, 11 N. J Ea 
389. ^ 

32. Ind. — Valentine v. Wysor, 123 
Ind. 47, 23 N. E. 1076, 7 L. R. A. 788. 
Kan — Eavenscraft v. Pratt, 22 Kan. 20. 
Me.— Warren v. Warren, 56 Me. 360, 



pAnTntinsmp 



21 



mere fact that the surviving partner is also the legal representative 

of the deceased partner, is not alone sufficient to justify such action.^^ 

(V.) Creditor. — Equity will, where the legal remedy is inadequate, 

-compel an accounting and settlement of partnership matters at the 

instance of a creditor.^* 

b. Necessary and Proper Parties. — (!•) Generally. — The general 
rules governing parties in equity,'^ are applicable to suits for an 
accounting and settlement of a partnership. Any person whose pres- 
ence is necessary to a complete determination of the partnership ac- 
counting should be made a party ,^° while persons whose presence are 



wherein th© heirs had been admitted 
into partnership before the death of 
their testator, but the purpose of the 
suit was to secure an accounting of the 
old copartnership to determine the in- 
terest they acquired. Md. — Roseiizweig 
1?. Thompson, 66 Md. 593, 8 Atl. 659. 
Mo. — ^Byers v. Weeks, 105 Mo. App. 72., 
79 S. W. 485, if the defendant has an 
unsettled partnership estate in his 
hands which he has failed to adminis- 
ter and for which he has failed to 
account, and which the deceased part- 
ner 's administrator failed to administer 
while in office, and there being no 
authority to appoint an administrator 
de bonis non, the plaintiffs have the 
right to sue in their own names as 
heirs at law. N. J. — Harrison v. 
Eighter, 11 N. J. Bq. 389. N. Y.— Blake 
V. Barnes, 63 Hun 633, 18 N. Y. Supp. 
471, 28 Abb. N. C. 401, 45 N. Y. St. 130. 
S. 0.— -Wagner v. Sanders, 49 S. C. 192, 
27 S. E. 68. 

[a] Rule Stated. — "While it is un- 
doubtedly true, as a general rule, that 
an action to compel a surviving part- 
ner to account can only be maintained 
by the personal representative of the 
deceased partner, yet eircumstanees 
may appear which create an exception 
to the general rule and make it proper 
that a court of equity should entertain 
an action on behalf of the heirs. Where 
it is shown that there is collusion be- 
tween the surviving partner and the 
executor, the latter refusing to compel 
an accounting by the former, or where 
there has been such dealing between 
the two as renders it probable that the 
executor will not make a bona fide 
effort to secure an accounting, or 
other like circumstances appear, it has 
been held that the heirs may maintain 
the action." Valentine v. Wysor, 123 
Ind. 47, 23 N. B. 1076, 7 L. R. A. 788. 
And see to the same effect, Stainton 
V. The Carron Co., 18 Beav. 146, 157, 



23 L. J. Ch. 299, 18 Jur. 137, 2 Eq. 
R. 466, 2 W. R. 176, 52 Eng. Reprint 58; 
Davies v. Davies, 2 Keene 534, 1 Jur. 
446, 48 Eng. Reprint 733; Bowsher v. 
Watkins, 1 Russ. & M. 277, 39 Eng. 
Reprint 107. 

33. la. — Hutton V. Laws, 55 Iowa 
710, 8 N. W. 642, remedy of the heirs 
is to have the survivor removed as 
administrator, and another appointed 
who would maintain the action against 
the surviving partner. N. Y. — Hyer v. 
Burdett, 1 Edw. Ch. 325. Pa.— See In re 
Dampf's Appeal, 106 Pa. 72. 

34. O. S. Kelly Co. v. Zarecor 
(Tex.), 62 S. W. 189. 

35. See the title "Parties." 

36. U. S.— Hoxie V. Carr, 1 Sumn. 
178, 12 Fed. Cas. No. 6,802. Ark. 
Hirsch v. Adler, 21 Ark. 338; Howell 
V. Harvey, 5 Ark. 270, 39 Am. Dec. 
376. Cal. — Cuyamaca Granite Co. v. 
Pacific Pav. Co., 95 Cal. 252, 30 Pac 
525; Roach v. Caraffa, 85 Cal 436, 
25 Pac. 22; Doudell v. Shoo, 20 Cal. 
App. 424, 129 Pac. 478, vendee of prop- 
erty which was alleged to be partner- 
ship a,ssets. Ind. — Dehority v. Nelson, 
56 Ind. 414. Mass. — Bartlett v. Parks, 
1 Gush. 82. Mich. — Houghton v. State 
Mut. Life Assur. Co., 110 Mich. 308, 
68 N. W. 142 (insurance company which 
consented to its general agent taking 
plaintiff in as partner) ; Glynn v. 
Phetteplace, 26 Mich. 383, assignee. 
Mo. — Anable v. McDonald Land & Min. 
Co., 144 Mo. App. 303, 128 S. W. 38, 
participant in fraudulent combination 
against plaintiff. Nov. — Rhodes v. 
Williams, 12 Nev. 20. N. H.— Penniman 
V. Jones, 58 N. H. 447 (a confederate of 
a fraudulent partner); Raymond v. 
Putnam, 44 N. H. 160. N. Y.— Wade v 
Rusher, 4 Bosw. 537 (confederate of 
fraudulent partner) ; Johnson v. Snyder, 
7 How. Pr. 395 Cassignee) ; Jennings v. 
Whittemore, 2 Thomp. & C. 377 (eon- 
federate of fraudulent partner); Webb 

Vol, XXI 



28 



PABTNEBSHIP 



not necessary should not be made parties thereto.'' 

(II.) Partners and Their Bepreaentsvtives. — Generally, all the partners,^* 



V. Helion, 3 Eobt. 625, fraudulent 
vendee. Pa. — Parker v. Broadbentj 134 
Pa. 322, 19 Atl. 631. S. O.— Wagner v. 
Sanders, 49 S. C. 192, 27 S. E. 68. Vt. 
Stimson v. Lewis, 36 Vt. 91. 

[a] Others Clatmiug Interest in 
Firm Assets. — Where a surviving part- 
ner has used the partnership assets in 
another partnership formed by him 
and subsequently dies, his representa- 
tive and the surviving partner of the 
second partnership should be made 
parties defendant to a bill filed by the 
administrator of the first deceased 
member of the original firm. Costley 
V. Towles, 46 Ala. 660. 

[b] A person in possession of part- 
nership property is not a, necessary 
party to a suit for an accounting be- 
tween partners. Duden «. Maloy, 37 
Fed. 98. But see Wagner v. Sanders, 
49 S. C. 192, 27 S. E. 68. 

[c] Corporation Acting as Partner- 
ship Trustee. — A corporation organized 
by a partnership for the purpose of 
acting as its trustee is a proper de- 
fendant to a suit for an accounting. 
Pearee v. Sutherland, 164 Tod. 609, 
90 C. C. A. 519. 

37. Ala.— Webb v. Butler, 196 Ala. 
181, 72 So. 31. Conn. — Bissell v. Ames, 
17 Conn. 121. Pa. — ^Luzier v. Naylor 
Line & T"wine Co., 8 Pa. Dist. 632. 

[a] Stranger Entitled to Share of 
Partner's Profits. — The fact that an- 
other person, not a member of the part- 
nership, is entitled to a share in the 
complainants' portion of the partner- 
ship assets does not make him a proper 
party. Sanger v. French, 157 N. Y. 
213, 51 N. B. 979. Compare Steele v. 
Schaffer, 107 111. App. 320. 

38. U. S.— Fourth Nat. Bank «. New 
Orleans & C. E. Co., 11 Wall. 624, 20 
L. ed. 82; Gaddie v. Mann, 147 Fed. 
960; Vose V. Philbrook, 3 Story 335, 
28 Fed. Cas. No. 17,010; Gray v. Larri- 
more, 4 Sawy. 638, 2 Abb. 542, 10 
Fed. Cas. No. 5,721. Ala.— Webb v. 
Butler, 196 Ala. 181, 72 So. 31; For- 
cheimer v. Foster, 192 Ala. 218, 68 So. 
879. Ark. — Howell v. Harvey, 5 Ark. 
270, 39 Am. Dec. 376. Cal.- Cuyamaca 
Granite Co. v. Pacific Pav. Co., 95 Cal. 
252, 30 Pac. 525; Wright v. Ward, 65 
Cal. 525, 4 Pae. 534; Blood v. Fair- 
banks, 48 CaL 171; Settembre v. 
Putnam, 30 Cal. 490. Oolo, — Lynch v. 

Vol. •yyt 



Foley, 32 Colo. 110, 76 Pae. 370. Conn. 
Townsend v. Auger, 3 Conn. 354. G-a. 
Elliott V. Deason, 64 Ga. 63; Wells v. 
Strange, 5 Ga. 22. 111. — Gerard v. 
Bates, 124 IV. 150, 16 N. E. 258, 7 Am. 
St. Eep. r"n; Braekca v. Kennedy, 4 
111. C'A; Yer-Vr v. Kaufmann, 176 
111. App. 364. La. — Fran c is v. Lavine, 
21 La. Ain. C?"); Pufau v. Massicot's 
Heirs, Mart. (N. S.) 182. Me.— Farrar 
V. Pearson, TD Me. 561, 8 Am. Rep. 439; 
Warren v. Warren, 56 Me. 360. Md, 
Fried v. Burk, 125 Md. 500, 94 Atl. 86; 
Bruns v. Heise, 101 Md. 163, 60 Atl. 604. 
Mass. — Towle v. Pierce, 12 Mete. 329, 
46 Am. Dec. 679. ISUch. — Glynn v. 
Phetteplace, 26 Mich. 383. Minn. 
Wilcox V. Comstock, 37 Minn. 65, 33 
N. W. 42. N. H.— Eaymond v. Putnam, 
44 N. H. 160. N. M.— De Manderfield 
V. Field, 7 N. M. 17, 32 Pac. 146. N. C. 
Allison V. Davidson, 17 N. C. 79. Tex.' 
Boyd V. Boyd, 34 Tex. Civ. App. 57, 
78 S. W. 39; Santleben v. Froboese, 
17 Tex. Civ. App. .626, 43 S. W. 571. 
Vt. — Stimson v. Lewis, 36 Vt. 91. Va. 
Waggoner v. Gray's Admr., 2 Hen. & 
M. (12 Va.) 603. Eng.— Ehrmann v. 
Ehrmann, 72 L. T. N. S. 17, 43 Wkly. 
Eep. 125; Ireton v. Lewes, Eep. Temp. 
Finch 96, 23 Eng. Eeprint 52. 

[a] Even though the members have 
split into two divisions for the purpose 
of carrying on separate parts of the 
general enterprise. Forcheimer v. Fos- 
ter, 192 Ala. 218, 68 So. 879. 

[b] Partner whose interest in the 
paitnersbip is sold under an execution 
upon a judgment against him person- 
ally is a necessary party. Wright tv 
Ward, 65 Cal. 525, 4 Pae. 534; Gerard 
V. Bates, 124 111. 150, 16 N. E. 258, 
7 Am. St. Eep. ,350. 

[c] Partner with whom complain- 
ant had adjusted accounts and suc- 
ceeded to his interests is necessary 
party to accounting with the third 
partner. Bracken v. Kennedy, 4 HI. 

[d] Retired partner (1) whose 
rights and interests have all passed by 
assignment to one who has taken his 
place in the firm with the consent of 
the other members, need not be made 
a party. Howell v. Harvey, 5 Ark. 270 
39 Am. Dee. 376. But (2) in an action 
by the assignee of a partner for an 
accounting by the other partner, the 



PABTNEB8EIP 



29 



or their representatives,^* should be made parties, either as plain- 
tiffs or defendants, to a suit for a dissolution and accounting 
of the partnership, and this same rule applies where the statute provides 
that the law action of account may be used*" or where the accounting 
iC had in the probate court.*^ 

Where the partners are very numerous,*^ or some are out of the 
;;urisdiction,*' a court of equity may, within the exercise of its sound 
discretion, dispense with their being made parties, if their interests 
will not be prejudiced by the decree, or their absence affect the just 
and final determination of the merits of the case. 

(III.) Transferee, Assignee or Mortgagee, etc. —The transferee, pur- 
chaser or other person acquiring an interest in a partnership should be 
made a party to a settlement of the partnership,** unless the account- 
ing is for the purpose of adjusting previous partnership matters with 
which he is not concerned or connected.*^ 

(IV.) Creditors. — While a creditor of the partnership is not a neces- 
sary, nor generally, a proper party to an action between the partners 
for a settlement of the firm affairs,*^ yet he may be allowed to inter- 



assignor must be made a party. Pine 
Cliffs Farms v. Collier, 92 Misc. 269, 
156 N. Y. Supp. 293. And see 3 
Standard Proc. 117, 118. 

39. TJ. S. — ^Brew v. Cochran, 141 
Fed. 459: Gray v. Larrimore, 4 Sawy. 
638, 2 Abb. 542, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,721. 
Ala.— Webb v. Butler, 196 Ala. 181, 72 
So. 31; Cannon v. Copeland, 43 Ala. 
201. Colo. — Lynch v. Foley, 32 Colo, 
no, 76 Pac. 370. Me. — Fuller v. Ben- 
jamin, 23 Me. 255. Mich. — Carpenter 
V. St. Clair Cire. Judge, 122 Mieh. 323, 
81 N. W. 95 ; Jenness v. Smith, 58 Mich. 
280, 25 N. W. 191. Miss. — Dilworth v. 
Mayfield, 36 Miss. 40. N. M.— De 
Manderfield v. Field, 7 N. M. 17, 32 
Pac. 146. S. O. — Manship v. Newton, 
94 S. C. 260, 77 S. B. 941. Vt.— Mason 
V. Mason's Exrs., 76 Vt. 287, 56 Atl. 
1011. Wis.— Blakely v. Smock, 96 Wis. 
611, 71 N. W. 1052. 

Contra, Parry v. Parry, 155 N. T. 
Supp. 1072, in the absence of an al- 
legation of the insolvency of the firm. 

[a] Am administrator de bonis non 
appointed in another state is not a 
necessary party to a suit for the set- 
tlement in another state of a partner- 
ship of which the deceased was a mem- 
ber. Manship v. Newton, 94 S. C. 260, 
77 8. E. 941. 

40. Foster v, Ives, 53 Vt. 458. 

[aj Married woman who is a partner 
must be joined. Foster v. Ives, 53 Vt. 
458. 

41. Arnold v. Arnold, 90 N. T. 580. 

42. Thickson v. Barry, 138 HI. App. 



100; Stimson v. Lewis, 36 Vt. 91. 

43. U. S.— Vose v. Philbrook, 3 Story 
335, 28 Fed. Cas. No. 17,010. Ala, 
Webb V. Butler, 196 Ala. 181, 72 So. 
31. Cal.— Wright V. Ward, 65 Cal. 525, 
4 Pac. 534. Colo.— Lynch v. Foley, 32 
Colo. 110, 76 Pac. 370. Me.— Mudgett 
V. Gager, 52 Me. 541. Mass. — Towle 
V. Pierce, 12 Mete. 329, 46 Am. Dec. 
679. Nev. — Beck v. Thompson, 22 Nev. 
109, 36 Pac. 562. Eng.— Duxbury v. 
Isherwood, 10 L. T. N. S. 712. 

44. U. S. — Hoxie v. Carr, 1 Sumn. 
173, 12 Fed. Cas. No. 6,802. Ark. 
Howell V. Harvey, 5 Ark. 270, 39 Am. 
Dec. 376. HI. — Eosenstiel v. Gray, 112 
111. 282. 

[a] The assignee of a bankrupt 
partner should be made a party in his 
place. Fuller v. Benjamin, 23 Me. 255. 

[b] If the transferee has no real 
interest^ he need not be made a party, 
if the real person in interest is a 
party. Janney v. Brown, 36 La. Ann. 
118. 

45. Harper v. Anderson, 104 Gal. 
xvii, 37 Pac. 926. 

46. U. S. — Kilbourn v. Sunderland, 
130 U. S. 505, 9 Sup. Ct. 594, 32 L. 
ed. 1005; Hoxie v. Carr, 1 Sumn. 173, 
12 Fed. Cas. No. 6,802. CaL — Adams 
V. Woods, 8 Cal. 152, 68 Am. Dee. 313. 
La. — Gridley v. Conner, 2 La. Ann. 87. 
N. Y.— Fielding v. Lucas, 87 N. Y. 197, 
plaintiff partner cannot join the judg- 
ment creditors of his copartner in a 
bill for an accountine for the purpose 
of having them enjoined from satisfy- 

Vol. XXI 



30 



PABTNEB8EIP 



vene to establish his ckim,*^ although some courts will not permit 
this,*' but will leave him to his remedy of filing a creditor's bill;*'* 
and it is really not necessary for the protection of his interests that 
he intervene, as the court will see that his interests are protected.®" 

c. Change in Parties Pendente Lite.^^ — Where one of the partners 
dies during the pendency of the action for account, his representative 
should be substituted as a party ;®^ a partner who assigns his interest 
in the partnership pending the accounting should still remain a party 
thereto,®^ and his assignees should thereupon be made parties.^* 

4. Process and Appearance.®^ — To give a court of chancery 
jurisdiction, a real defendant against whom the complainant is en- 
titled to a decree, must be personally served with process within the 
jurisdiction,®^ or some property must be found there, upon which the 
court can proceed in rem,®^ in which event service by publication may 
be made upon a non-resident partner.®' 

5. Provisional Remedies. — a. Attachment. ^^ — In some jurisdic- 
tions the remedy of attachment may be resorted to in suits for part- 
nership accounting, at least whenever the circumstances bring the case 
within some ground specified in the statute,™ in others a contrary rule 



ing their judgment as against the part- 
nership property. R. I. — ^Updike v. 
Doyle, 7 E. I. 446. 

47. Oal. — Grossini v. Perazzo, 66 
Cal. 545, 6 Pae. 450. But compare 
Isaacs V. Jones, 121 Cal. 257, 53 Pae. 
793, 1101, attaching creditor will not 
^e allowed by intervening, to delay 
the suit for an accounting until his 
suit is determined. Mass. — White v. 
White, 169 Mass. 52, 47 N. E. 499; 
Harvey v. Varney, 98 Mass. 118; Wash- 
burn V. Goodman, 17 Picli. 519. Neb. 
Clark V. Hall, 54 Neb. 479, 74 N. W. 
856. N. J. — Ross V. Titsworth, 37 N. J. 
Eq. 333. Ohio.— Bell v. Miller, 11 Ohio 
Dec. (Eeprint) 163. 25 Wkly. L. Bui. 
126. R. I.— Updike v. Doyle, 7 E. I. 
446. Tex. — Holder v. Shelby (Tex. Civ. 
App.), 118 S. W. 590. Wis.— Jacobson 
V. Landolt, 73 Wis. 142, 40 N. W. 636, 
9 Am. St. Eep. 767. 

As to intervention of creditors in 
general, see 14 Standard Peoc. 300. 

48. Burden v. Burden, 193 ni. App. 
102; Lvons v. Murray, 95 Mo. 23, 8 
S. W. 170, 6 Am. St. Eep. 17. 

49. Burden v. Burden, 193 111. App. 
102. See generally the title "Creditors' 
Suits." 

50. TJ. S. — Hoxie v. Carr, 1 Sumn. 
173, 12 Fed. Cas. No. 6,802. Cal.— Isaacs 
V. Jones, 121 Cal. 257, 53 Pac. 793, 1101. 
La. — G-ridley v. Conner, 2 La. Ann. 
87. E. I.— Updike v. Doyle, 7 E. I. 
446, 

Vol. XXI 



51. See generally the title "Par- 
ties." 

52. Krumbeck v. Clancy, 41 App. 
Div. 397, 58 N. Y. Supp. 727. 

[a] Even taougli the deceased had 
defaulted in his appearance and an- 
swer. Krumbeck v. Clancy, 41 App. 
Div. 397, 58 N. Y. Supp. 727. 

53. Nichol V. Stewart, 36 Ark. 612. 

54. Hoxie v. Carr. 1 Sumn. 173, 12 
Fed. Cas. No. 6,802; Nichol v. Stewart, 
36 Ark. 612. 

55. See generally the titles "Ap- 
pearamces;"" Process. ' ' 

56. Maude v. Eodes, 4 Dana (Ky.) 
144. 

57. Maude v. Eodes, 4 Dana (Ky.) 
144. 

58. Parsons v. Howard, 2 Woods 1, 
18 Fed. Cas. No. 10,777; Gray v. Larri- 
more, 4 Sawy. 638, 2 Abb. 542, 10 Fed. 
Cas. No. 5,721. 

[a] A "partnership" is not prop- 
erty within the meaning of an act 
authorizing service, by direction of 
court, on parties beyond its jurisdiction, 
where a proceeding in equity is in- 
stituted concerning property within the 
jurisdiction. Eshbach v. Slonaker, 1 
Pa. Dist. 32. 

59. Attachment by third persons, 
see infra, TI. B. 

60. m. — Humphreys v. Matthews, 11 
111. 471, action of account. la. — Han- 
sen v: Morris, 87 Iowa 303, 54 N. W. 
223; Curry v. Allen, 55 Iowa 318, 7 
N. W. 635. Kau.— Stone v. Boone, 24 



PABTNEBSHIP 



31 



prevails.®^ The conflict in the authorities is due partly to difference 
in the statutes and partly to different interpretation of similar stat- 
utes, °^ the principles governing which are not peculiar to partnership 
cases and are fully treated elsewhere."^ Generally the complainant 
cannot proceed by attachment where it is impossible for him to swear 
as to the amount which will be due him upon a final settlement.'* 

b. Sequestration. — The remedy of sequestration is available in a 
suit for accounting.*^ 

c. Arrest."^ — One partner cannot secure the arrest of another 
for a failure to account for partnership assets in his hands."' 

d. Injunction. — The general rule that the granting of an injunc- 
tion is within the sound discretion of the court, to be governed by the 
nature of the ease,*^ applies in suits between partners for an account- 
ing and settlement of the partnership."^ An injunction will not be 



Kan. 337 (nonresidence of defendant, 
the cause of action arisiue wholly with- 
in the jurisdiction) ; Treadway v. Eyan, 
3 Kan. 437, not an action on contract 
within attachment statute. La. — Bar- 
row V. McDonald, 12 La. Ann. 110. 
Mass. — See Com. v. Sumner, 5 Pick. 
360. Ohio. — Goble v. Howard, 12 Ohio 
St. 165, even ' though the action be 
equitable in its nature. Wash.-— Bing- 
ham V. Keylor, 19 Wash. 555, 53 Pac. 
729. 

[a] The obligation is'not fraudulent- 
ly incurred within the meaning of the 
attachment statute, where a partner 
merely refuses to account for partner- 
ship funds collected by him. Stone v. 
Boone, 24 Kan. 337. 

61. Ala. — NewBom v. Pitman, 98 
Ala. 526, 12 So. 412. Cal.— Wheeler v. 
Farmer, 38 Cal. 203. But see cases 
cited in 3 Standard Pboc. 349, note 
36. Ky. — Kennaird v. Adams, 11 B; 
Mon. 102. N. Y. — Ketchum v. Ketchum, 

1 Abb. Pr. (N. S.) 157,, tuffirmed in 46 
Barb. 43. 

[a] Not an Action for Eecovery of 
Money. — An action for the dissolution 
of the firm and the settlement of its 
affairs, and of the accounts of the sev- 
eral partners with the firm, is not an 
action for the recovery of money 
wherein an attachment may be issued. 
Ketchum v. Ketchum, 1 Abb. Pr. N. S. 
(N. Y.) 157, affirmed in 46 Barb. 43. 

62. See cases in preceding notes. 

63. See the title "Attachment." 

64. 111. — Humphreys v. Matthews, 11 
111. 471. Kan. — Treadway v. Eyan, 3 
Kan. 437. La. — ^Barrow v. McDonald, 
12 La. Ann. 110; Brinegar v. Griffin, 

2 La. Ann. 154; Johnson v. Short, 2 
La, Ann. 277; Levy v. Levy, 11 La. 



577. Wash. — Bingham v. Keylor, 19 
Wash. 555, 53 Paq. 729. 

But see Hansen v. Morris, 87 Iowa 
303, 54 N. W. 223; Goble «. Howard, 
12 Ohio St. 165. 

65. Blanehard v. Luce, 19 La. Ann. 

46. See the title "Sequestration." 

66. Arrest on mesne process, see 
generally the title "Arrest in Civil 
Cases." 

Arrest on final processi, see the title 
"Judgments and. Decrees, Enforcement 
of." 

67. Soule V. Hayward, 1 Cal. 345. 
See Com. v. Sumner, 5 Pick. (Mass.) 
360, arrest not available in equity ac- 
counting. 

68. See the title "Injunctions." 

69. U. S. — Eowland v. Auto Car Co., 
133 Fed. 835. Fla.— Allen v. Hawley, 
6 Fla. 142, 63 Am. Dec. 198. Ga. 
Joselove v. Bohrman, 119 Ga. 204, 45 
S. E. 982. Md.— GusdorfE v. Schleis- 
ner, 85 Md. 360, 37 Atl. 170. N. J. 
Wagoner v. Warne (N. J. Eq.), 14 Atl. 
215; Sutro V. Wagner, 23 N. J. Bq. 
388; Moies v. O'Neill, 23 N. J. Eq. 
207. N. Y.— Walker v. Trott, 4 Edw. 
Ch. 38; Dunham v. Jarvis, 8 Barb. 88; 
Greenwald v. Gotham-Attucks Music 
Co., 118 App. Div. 29, 103 N. Y. Supp. 
123. N. 0.— Taylor v. Eussell, 119 N. C. 
30, 25 S. E. 710. Pa. — In re Slobig's 
Appeal, 2 Sad. 365, 5 Atl. 670; Baxter 
V. Buchanan, 3 Brewst. 435. S. C. 
Ellis V. Commander, 1 Strobh. Eq. 188. 
Eng. — Alder v. Fouraere, 3 Swanst. 489, 
36 Eng. Eeprint 947; Littlewood v. 
Caldwell, 11 Price 97, 25 Eev. Eep. 711 ; 
Cofton V. Horner, 5 Price 537. 

[a] Not on Ex Parte Order. — Gold- 
man V. Manistee Circ. Judge, 155 Mich. 

47, 118 N. W, 600, See Petit v. Cheve- 

Vol. XXI 



32 



PARTNERSHIP 



granted merely on the ground of the dissolution of the partnership; 
there must be a violation of partnership rights and duties.'"' 

e. Receiver.''^ — .In an action for the settlement of a partnership, 
the power to appoint a receiver is one inherent in a court of equity, 
but the application thereof in a particular case is within the judicial 
discretion of the court,^^ and, as by the appointment of a receiver, the 
partners are entirely relieved from any control in the partnership af- 



lier, 13 N. J. Eq. 181, where bill fails 
to show pressing emergency. 

[b] BUI for Injunction, see Fletcher 
V. Vandusen, 52 Iowa 448, 3 N. W. 
488; 9 Standabd Proc. 933-934, 623, 
633; and generally the title "Injunc- 
tions." 

[c] A general order enjoining a part- 
ner from intermeddling with the prop- 
erty and effects of the firm does not 
prohibit him from confessing a judg- 
ment for a debt bona fide due to a 
creditor of the firm. McCredie v. Sen- 
ior, 4 Paige (N. Y.) 378; Hewitt v. 
Patrick, 26 Tex. 326. 

70. V. S.— Gaddie v. Mann, 147 Fed. 
960; Miller v. O 'Boyle, 89 Fed. 140; 
Wilkinson v. Tilden, 9 Fed. 6)83, injunc- 
tion will issue where one partner seeks 
to sell partnership property. Ga. — Mar- 
shall & Co. V. Johnson, 33 6a. 500. 
N. J.— Wolbert v. Harris, 7 N. J. Eq. 
605. N. Y.^Haggerty «. Granger, 15 
How. Pr. 243. N. C— Taylor v. Rus- 
sell, 119 N. C. 30, 25 S. B. 710, re- 
strain sale of partnership property by 
insolvent partner. S. O. — Ellis *;. Com- 
mander, 1 Strobh. Eq. 188. Wis. — Zim- 
merman V. Chambers, 79 Wis. 20, 47 
N. W. 947, injunction allowed com- 
plainant where he was excluded from 
participation in the firm. Eng. — Elliott 
V. Brown, 3 Swanst. 492, 36 Eng. Re- 
print 948 (will enjoin surviving part- 
ner from proceeding by ejectment to 
obtain exclusive possession of partner- 
ship property); Blachford v. Hawkins, 
1 L. J. Ch. (O. S.) 141. 

71. See the title "Receivers." 

72. U. S. — Rowland v. Auto Car Co., 
133 Fed. 835; Cary Bros. v. Dalhoff 
Const. Co., 126 Fed. 584. Ala.— Gillett 
V. Higgins, 142 Ala. 444, 38 So. 664; 
Bard v. Bingham, 54 Ala. 463. Cal. 
Silveira v. Reese, 138 Cal. xix, 71 Pac. 
515. Ga. — Pritehett v. Kennedy, 140 
Ga. 248, 78 S. E. 902; Joselbve «. 
Bohrman, 119 Ga. 204, 45 S. E. 982. 
Haw. — Oyama v. Stuart, 22 Hawaii 
693. Ind.— Robbins v. Reed, 174 Ind. 
291, 91 N. E. 921. La.— Meyer v. 
Meyer Bros., 116 La. 456, 40 So. 794; 

Vol. XXI 



McNair v. Gourrier, 40 La. Ann. 353, 
4 So. 310; Pratt v. McHatton, 11 La. 
Ann. 260. Minn. — Bacon v. Engstrom, 
129 Minn. 229, 152 N. W. 264, 537; 
Albrecht v. Diamon, 125 Minn. 283, 146 
N. W. 1101. Mo.— Cox V. Volkert, 86 
Mo. 505; Quinlivan v. English, 44 Mo. 
46. N. J. — Nathan v. Bacon, 75 N. J. 
Eq. 401, 72 Atl. 359; Rhodes v. Wilson. 
(N. J. Eq.), 19 Atl. 732. N. Y.— Dun- 
ham V. Jarvis, 8 Barb. 88; Philipp v. 
Von Raven, 26 Misc. 552, 57 N. Y. 
Supp. 701; Pratt v. Underwood, 4 Civ. 
Proc. 167. Ore. — Fleming v. Carson, 37 
Ore. 252, 62 Pac. 374. Pa. — Baxter v. 
Buchanan, 3 Brewst. 435. Terni. — Todd 
V. Rich, 2 Tenn. Ch. 107. Tex.— Shulte 
V. Hoffman, 18 Tex. 678; Risehe v. 
Rische, 46 Tex. Civ. App. 23, 101 S. W. 
849; Webb v. Allen, 15 Tex. Civ. App. 
605, 40 S. W. 342. W. Va.— Smith v. 
Brown, 44 W. Va. 342, 30 S. E. 160. 
Eng.— Pini v. Roncoroni, 61 L. J. Ch. 
218, 40 Wkly. Rep. 297 (1892), 1 Ch. 
633, 66 L. T. N. S. 255. 

[a] Inherent Power Not Dependent 
on Statute. — Cox v. Volkert, 86 Mo. 
505. 

[b ] Reasons Justifying Appointment. 
"Generally speaking, the exigencies 
justifying the 'appointment are that the 
plaintiff is reasonably certain to pre- 
vail, and that it is necessary to the 
preservation of the property involved, 
and the protection of the rights of 
all parties as their interests may ap- 
pear upon the final adjudication." 
Fleming v. Carson, 37 Ore. 252, 62 Pae. 
374. 

[c] Effect.— (1) The appointment in 
no way affects or determines property 
rights, but is merely preliminary to a 
full and final hearing upon the merits 
of all questions affecting the rights of 
the partners and the scope and extent 
of the partnership affairs and the prop- 
erty thereof. Norton v. Sperry, 113 
Minn. 447, 129 N. W. 843; Bird v. Aus- 
'tin,_ 8 Jones & S. (N. Y.) 109. (2) 
It is not a dissolution of the partner- 
ship. Waring v. Robinson, Hoffinum 
Ch. (N. Y.) 524. 



PABTNEE8HIP 



33 



fairs, the courts are reluctant to appoint one and will not do so where 
other remedies are sufficient, or the reasons for doing so are not urgent 
or imperative.'^ The existence of the partnership must be clearly es- 
tablished,'* and as a rule the court will not appoint a receiver of a 
partnership unless the facts alleged will ultimately entitle the com- 
plainant to a dissolution of the partnership,'^ nor ordinarily will it 
appoint one on an ex parte order." 

The mere dissolution of the partnership, is not, as a general rule, 
a sufiBeient reason for the appointment of a receiver," but there must 
be some breach of duty,'* or a breach of the contract of partner- 



73. U. S. — Gary Bros. v. DalhofE 
Const. Co., 126 Fed. 584; Devereux v. 
Fleming, 47 Fed. ,177. Ala. — Bard v. 
Bingham, 54 Ala. 463. la. — Loomis v. 
McKenzie, 31 Iowa 425; Saylor v. Mock- 
bie, 9 Iowa 209. Md. — Heflebower v. 
Buck, 64 Md. 15, 20 Atl. 991. Mich. 
Morey v. Grant, 48 Mich. 326, 12 N. W. 
202; Simon v. Schloss, 48 Mich. 233, 
12 N. W. 196. Minn. — Albrecht v. Dia- 
mon, 125 Minn. 283, 146 N. W. 1101. 
Miss. — ^Lawrence Lumb. Co. v. Lyon & 
Co., 93 Misa 859, 47 So. 849. N. J. 
Nathan v. Bacon, 75 N. J. Eq. 401, 
72 Atl. 359; Cox v. Peters, 13 N. J. 
Eq. 39. N. y. — ^Buchanan v. Comstock, 
57 Barb. 568; Hoffman v. Hauptner, 135 
App. Div. 148, 119 N. Y. Supp. 1022; 
Cohn V. Wahn, 132 App. Div. 849, 117 
N. Y. Supp. 633. Tenn.— Todd v. 
Eich, 2 Tenn. Ch. 107. Wash.— Smith 
V. Brown, 50 Wash. 240, 96 Pac. 1077; 
Wales V. Dennis, 9 Wash. 308, 37 Pae. 
450. W. Va.— Wood v. Wood, 50 W. 
Va. 570, 40 S. E. 416. Eng. — Baxter v. 
West, 28 L. J. Ch. 169. 

74. U. S. — Eowland v. Auto Car Co., 
133 Fed. 835. Ala. — Irwin v. Everson, 
95 AJa. 64, 10 So. 320. HI.— Leeds v. 
Townsend, 74 111. App. 444. la. — Ho- 
bart V. Ballard, 31 Iowa 521. Kan. 
JEottenstein v. Conrad, 9 Kan. 435. 
Minn. — Bacon v. Engstrom, 129 Minn. 
229, 152 N. W. 264, 537; Norton v. 
Sperry, 103 Minn." 447, 129 N. W. 843. 
N. Y. — Kirkwood v. Smith, 64 App. 
Div. 615, 72 N. Y. Supp. 291; Day v. 
Dow, 46 App. Div. 148, 61 N. Y. Supp. 
793. Pa. — ^Baxter v. Buchanan, 3 Brewst. 
435. Tex. — Eisohe v. Eische, 46 Tex. 
Civ. App. 23, 101 S. W. 849. W. Va. 
Wood V. Wood, 50 W. Va. 570, 40 S. E. 
416. Eng. — Peacock v. Peacock, 16 Ves. 
Jr. 49, 33 Eng. Eeprint 902. 

[a] The denial of the partnership 
is not sufficient to prevent the appoint- 
ment of a receiver, when the court is 
satisfied from the evidence that the 



partnership relation exists. Leeds v. 
Townsend, 74 111. App. 444; Eische v. 
Eische, 46 Tex. Civ. App. 23, lOl S. W. 
849. 

75. U. S. — Einstein v. Schnebly, 89 
Fed. 540. Ala. — Bard v. Bingham, 54 
Ala. 463. N. Y. — Waring v. Eobinson, 
Hoffm. Ch. 524. Tex. — Eische v. Eische, 

46 Tex. Civ. App. 23, 101 S. W. 849. 
Eng — Baxter v. West, 28 L. J. Ch. 169. 

76. Goldman v. Manistee Circ. Judge, 
155 Mich. 47, 118 N. W. 600; Lawrence 
Lumb. Co. V. Lyon & Co., 93 Miss. 859, 

47 So. 849. 

77. N. J.— Wilson v. Fitchter, 11 N. 
J. Eq. 71; Birdsall v. Colie, 10 N. J. 
Eq. 63. Eng. — Harding v. Glover, 18 
Ves. Jr. 281, 34 Eng. Eeprint 323. 
Can. — Doupe v. Stewart, 13 Grant Ch. 
637. 

fa] "But it is not a matter of 
course to appoint a receiver of the 
partnership assets, even where a case 
for a dissolution exists." Todd v. 
Eich, 2 Tenn. Ch. 107. But see Gillett 
V. Higgins, 142 Ala. 444, 38 So. 664; 
Bard v. Bingham, 54 Ala. 463; Briar- 
field Iron Works Co. V. Foster, 54 Ala. 
622. 

78. Ala. — Brooke v. Tucker, 149 Ala. 
96, 43 So. 141. Fla.— West v. Chasten, 
12 Fla, 315; Allen v. Hawley, 6 Fla. 
142, 63 Am. Dec. 198. Ind.— Bufkin v. 
Boyce, 104 Ind. 53, 3 N. E. 615. la. 
Levi V. Karrick, 8 Iowa 150. Md. 
I>rury v. Eoberts, 2 Md. Ch. 157. N. J. 
Wilson V. Fitchter, 11 N. J. Eq. 71; 
Birdsall v. Colie, 10 N. J. Eq. 63. N. Y. 
Davis V. Grove, 2 Eobt. 134. Pa.— Sloan 
V. Moore, 37 Pa. 217. Tex. — Eische v. 
Eische, 46 Tex. Civ. App. 23, 101 S. W. 
849 (ousted from participation in busi- 
ness); Webb V. Allen, 15 Tex. Civ. 
App. 605, 40 S. W. 342. Wash.— Mar- 
tin V. Wilson, 84 Wash. 625, 147 Pac. 
404; Eeddine v. Anderson, 37 Wash. 
209, 79 Pac. 628. Cam.- Doupe v. Stew- 
art, 13 Grant Ch. 637 (one partner car- 

Vol. XXI 



34 



PARTNERSHIP 



ship,'® by the partner against whom the relief is sought, and this fact 
must appear from the pleadings.*" 

Continuance of Business. — The court will appoint a receiver only with 
the purpose of finally winding up the partnership affairs, and not to 
carry on the business,*^ though under some statutes, it may authorize 
the partnership business to be continued, during the pendency of the 
action, by one or more of the partners, upon their giving bond with 
sureties.*^ 

6. Pleadings.*' — a. Bill or Complaint. — (I.) Form and Sufficiency. 
A bill or complaint for the adjustment and settlement of partnership 
affairs must conform to the general rules relating to equity pleadings.** 
The fact of partnership between the parties should appear*' by aver- 
ment, either in terms or in substance, of the acts or agreements upon' 
which the claim of partnership is based,*^ together with all of the^ 



rying on trade after diasolution on their 
own account with the partnership ef- 
fects); Burden v. Howard, 2 N. Bruns. 
Eq. 461. 

79. U. S. — Einstein v. Sehnebly, 89 
Fed. 540. Fla. — Allen v. Hawley, 6 
Fla. 142, 63 Am. Dec. 198. N. J. 
Wilson V. Fitchter, 11 N. J. Eq. 71; 
Birdsall v. Colie, 10 N. J. Eq. 63. N. Y. 
Greenwald v. Gotham-Attucks Music 
Co., 118 App. Div. 29, 103 N. Y. Supp. 
123. Pa.— Sloan v. Moore, 37 Pa. 217. 
Can. — Doupe v. Stewart, 13 Grant Ch. 
637. 

80. Heflebower v. Buck, 64 Md. 15, 
20 Atl. 991; Eische v. Eische, 46 Tex. 
Civ. App. 23, 101 S. W. 849; Webb 
V. Allen, 15 Tex. Civ. App. 605, 40 
S. W. 342. 

81. Fla. — Allen v. Hawley, 6 Fla. 
142, 63 Am. Dec. 198. N". J.— Wolbert 
V. Harris, 7 N. J. Eq. 605. N. Y. 
Greenwald v. Gotham-Attucks Music 
Co., 118 App. Div. 29, 103 2Sr. Y. Supp. 
123. 

82. Popper v. Scheider, 7 Abb. Pr. 
N. S. (N. Y.) 56, 38 How. Pr. 34; 
Kirkwood v. Smith, 64 App. Div. 615, 
72 N. Y. Supp. 291; Philipp v. Von 
Eaven, 26 Misc. 552, 57 N. Y. Supp. 
701; Fleming v. Carson, 37 Ore. 252, 
62 Pac. 374. 

83. In action at law on account, 
see the title "Account and Account- 
ing. 'i 

84. See the title "Bills and An- 
swers," and 9 Standard Peoo. 8, 930; 
1 Standard Proc. 288. 

85. Ala.— Eeilly v. Woolbert, 196 
Ala. 191, 72 So. 10 (partnership suffi- 
ciently alleged); Dugger v. Tutwiler, 
129 Ala. 258, 30 So. 91. Cal.— Fischer 
V. Superior Court, 98 Cal. 67, 32 Pao. 

Vol. XXI 



875; Chalmers v. Chalmers, 81 Cal. 81, 
22 Pac. 395; Doudell v. Shoo, 20 Cal. 
App. 424, 129 Pac. 478, complaint suf- 
ficient. Ga. — ^Bennett v. Woolfolk, 15 
Ga. 213. ni. — ^Bracken v. Kennedy, 4 
111. 558. Kan. — Carlin v. Donegan, 15 
Kan. 495. Ky. — Havner v. Stephens, 
22 Ky. L. Bep. 498, 58 S. W. 372. Mass. 
Towle V. Pierce, 12 Mete. 329, 46 Am. 
Dec. 679. Mich. — Houghton v. State 
Mut. Life Assur. Co., 110 Mich. 308, 
68 N. W. 142. Minn. — Stern v. Harris, 
40 Minn. 209, 41 N. W. 1036. Mo. 
Pope V. Salsman, 35 Mo. 362. Mont. 
McMahon v. Thornton, 4 Mont. 46, 1 
Pac. 724. Neb. — Shriver v. MoCloud, 20 
Neb. 474, 30 N". W. 534. N. J.— Pat- 
terson V. Sadler, 71 F. J. Eq. 315, 63 
Atl. 1115. N. Y.— Salter v. Ham, 31 
N. Y. 321; Ludingtou v. Taft, 10 Barb. 
447; Chappell v. Chappell, 125 App. 
Div. 127, 109 N". Y. ,Supp. 648. Ohio. 
Gray v. Kerr, 46 Ohio St. 652, 23 N. E. 
136; Weber & Co. v. Kemper Bros., 8 
Ohio Dec. (Eeprint) 403. E. I. — Cong- 
don V. Aylsworth, 16 E. I. 281, 18 Atl. 
247. Tex. — Wright v. Eoss, 30 Tex. 
Civ. App. 207, 70 S. W. 234. Utah. 
Owen V. Oviatt, 4 Utah 95, 6 Pac. 527. 
W. Va.— Wood V. Wood, 50 W. Va. 
570, 40 S. E. 416. 

86. Ala.— Dugger v. Tutwiler, 129 
Ala. 258, 30 So. 91. Kan.— Carlin v. 
Donegan, 15 Kan. 495. N. J. — Patter- 
son V. Sadler, 71 N. J. Eq. 315, 63 
Atl. 1115. 

How partnership alleged in action 
between partners and third persons, see 
infra, II, G, 1, b, (I), (B). 

[a] The partnership property need 
not be speeifloally set forth in the biU, 
Dunlap V. Byers, 110 Mich. 109, 67 
N. W. 1067. 



PABTNEBSHIP 



35 



partners' names"^ and interests.** The facts constituting the grounds for 
seeking a dissolution should be alleged,*' and the grounds for an ac- 
counting or other equitable relief.'" It must appear from the bill that 
there are unsettled accounts growing out of the business of the alleged 
partnership,'^ but it is not necessary to allege that the defendant is in- 
debted to the complainant on an accounting.'^ Nor is it necessary that 
complainant offer to pay any balance found against him, or to other- 
wise do equity, as the court will do all justice between the parties.'* 

Where Dissolution Not Sought. — Where it is sought to obtain an ac- 
counting without a dissolution of the partnership,'* facts must be 
alleged in the bill showing that such an accounting is essential to the 
continuance of the business,'^ or that some special and unusual reason 



87. Glover v. Hembree, 82 Ala. 324, 
8 So. 251. 

88. Glover v. Hembree, 82 Ala. 324, 
8 So. 251; E^ederick; v. Cooper, 3 Iowa 
171. 

[a] A statement of the capital put 
into the partnership by a partner (1), 
as well as the amount taken out by 
a partner, has in some states been held 
necessary (Fla. — Nims v. Nims, 23 Pla. 
69, 1 So. 527. la. — Cooper v. Frederick, 
4 G. Gr. 403. N. J. — Patterson v. Sad- 
ler, 71 N. J. Eq. 315, 63 Atl. 1115); 
(2) in others not. Bufkin v. Boyce, 104 
Ind. 53, 3 N. E. 615; Kimble v. Seal, 
92 Ind. 276. 

89. U. S.— Einstein v. Schnebly, 89 
Fed. 540. Ala. — Dugger v. Tutwiler, 
129 Ala. 258, 30 So. 91. Ky. — Havner 
V. Stephens, 22 Ky. L. Bep. 498, 58 
S. W. 372. N. Y. — Waite v. Aborn, 60 
App. Div. 521, 69 N. Y. Supp. 967. Tex. 
Wright V. Ross, 30 Tex. Civ. App. 207, 
70 S. W. 234. 

[a] If, however, the partnership is 
subject to dissolution at the wUl of 
either partner, it is necessary only for 
the complainant to allege that the firm 
had, prior to the filing of the bill, been 
dissolved. Einstein v. Schnebly, 89 Fed. 
540; Wright V. Eoss, 30 Tex. Civ. App. 
207, 70 S. W. 234. 

90. Einstein v. Schnebly, 89 Fed. 
540. 

[a] Lack of adequate remedy at 
law may sufficiently appear from the 
facts stated. Pine Cliffs Farms v. Col- 
lier, 92 Misc. 269, 156 N. T. Supp. 293. 
See the title "Legal Eemedy." 

91. Ala. — Dugger v. Tutwiler, 129 
Ala. 258, 30 So. 91; Haynes v. Shorx, 
88 Ala. 562, 7 So. 157. Cal.— Young 
V. Pearson, 1 Cal. 448. Conn. — Canfleld 
V. Hard, 6 Conn. 180. 111. — Bracken v. 
Kennedy, 4 111. 558; Acme Copying Co. 
V. McLure, 41 HI. App. 397. Ind.— De- 



hority v. Nelson, 56 Ind. 414. Kan. 
Carlin v. l)onegan, 15 Kan. 495. La. 
Borah v. O'Niell, 116 La. 672, 41 So. 
29. Minn. — Stern v. Harris, 40 Minn. 
209, 41 N. W. 1036. Mo.— Pope v. 
Salsman, 35 Mo. 362. N. Y. — Luding- 
ton V. Taft, 10 Barb. 447. Ohio.— Gray 
V. Kerr, 46 Ohio St. 652, 23 N. E. 136. 
Ore. — Holladay v. Elliott, 3 Ore. 340. 
R. I. — Congdon v. Aylsworth, 16 E. I. 
281, 18 Atl. 247. Tex.— Wright v. Eoss, 
30 Tex. Civ. App. 207, 70 S. W. 234. 

92. Wilcoxon v. Wilcoxon, 199 III. 
244, 65 N. E. 229. 

[a] But see Hunt v. Gorden, 52 
Miss. 194, wherein the court said. "A 
partner who impleads his associate for 
a settlement must aver and prove, if 
denied, an indebtedness to himself, or 
at least a probable indebtedness." 

93. Colo. — Continental Divide Min, 
luv. Co. V. Bliley, 23 Colo. 160, 46 Pac. 
633; Craig v. Chandler, 6 Colo. 543. 
Ga.— Wells V. Strange, 5 Ga. 22. 111. 
Wilcoxon V. Wilcoxon, 199 111. 244, 65 
N. E. 229; Qninn v. McMahon, 40 111. 
App. 593. Tex. — Wright v. Ross, 30 
Tex. Civ. App. 207, 70 S. W. 234. W. Va. 
Marshall v. Anderson, 92 S. E. 421; 
Hyre v. Lambert, 37 W. Va. 26, 16 S. 
E. 446, 

[a] "Under the ancient equity prac- 
tice, where one sued for an accounting, 
it was necessary to offer in his bill 
to do equity by an averment of his 
willingness to pay any balance that 
might be found owing from him to the 
defendant. But such averment has for 
many years been presumed, and tie 
bill is not defective if the same is 
omitted therefrom. ' ' Craig v. Chandler, 
6 Colo. 543. 

94. See supra, I, C, 1, b. 

95. Lord v. Hull, 178 N. Y. 9, 70 
N. E. 69, 102 Am. St. Kep. 484. 

Vol. XXI 



36 



PABTNEBSHIP 



exists to make such an accounting necessary.** 

Where all the partners are not before the court, the bill should con- 
tain facts showing that the interests of the absent partners will not 
be prejudicially affecied,^^ or allege facts which will justify the court 
to proceed to judgment notwithstanding the absence of parties whose 
presence is ordinarily indispensable.*' 

Where there has been a voluntary final settlement the bill must al- 
lege the particular facts as to such accident, mistake or fraud as would 
justify equitable interference.^^ . 

(II.) Joinder of Causes.i — A bill for a general account and settle- 
ment of a partnership may embrace every object necessary to its com- 
plete adjustment without being demurrable for multifariousness,^ and 
they may all properly be embraced in a single count.^ But a cause of 
action for the settlement of partnership accounts cannot be joined 
with one to recover from the heirs or representatives of a deceased 
partner the balance which may be found due the plaintiff.* In action 
for the settlement of one partnership, the settlement of another and 
different partnership in which the parties may be interested, cannot 
be asked for.^ 

Merely personal claims between the partners are not cognizable in 



96. Lord v. Hull, 178 N. Y. 9, 70 
N. E. 69, 102 Am. St. Rep. 484. 

97. Ala.— Webb v. Butler, 196 Ala. 
181, 72 So. 31. Colo.— Lynch v. Foley, 
32 Colo. 110, 76 Pac. 370. 111.— Thick- 
son V. Barry, 138 111. App. 100. Me. 
Mudgett V. Gager, 52 Me. 541. Mass. 
Towle V. Pierce, 12 Mete. 329, 46 Am. 
Dec. 679, that absent partners were 
' ' beyond the reach of the jurisdiction 
of the court," and that they had re- 
ceived their full share of the partner- 
ship effects. 

[a] ' ' While all partners would prima 
facie be necessary parties, and might 
under any conditions be proper par- 
ties, equity pleading would not forbid 
averment and proof dispensing with 
the necessity of making them parties 
to the cause." Webb v. Butler, 196 
Ala. 181, 72 So. 31. 

As to necessary or proper parties, 
see supra, I, C, 3, b. 

98. Lynch v. Foley, 32 Colo. 110, 76 
Pac. 370. 

99. Ala. — Broda v. Greenwald, 66 
Ala. 538. Alaska. — Pearce v. Suther- 
land, 4 Alas'ka 120. Fla. — Durham v. 
Edwards, 50 Fla. 495, 38 So. 926. Ind. 
Meredith v. Ewing, 85 Ind. 410. Ky. 
Loesser v. Loesser, 81 Ky. 139; Lee's 
Admrs. v. Eeed, 4 Dana 109. Mo. — Mc- 
Mahill V. Jenkins, 69 Mo. App. 279. 
N. J. — Parkhurst v. Muir, 7 N. J. Eq. 
555. R. I. — Chapman v. Chapman, 13 

Vol. xxr 



E. I. 680. Tex. — Merriwether •». Harde- 
man, 51 Tex. 436. W. Va.— Mahnke 
V. Neale, 23 W. Va. 57, bill will b« 
dismissed in absence of such aver- 
ment. 

[a] General Allegation of Fraud or 
Mistake Insufficient. — Loesser i;. Loes- 
ser, 81 Ky. 139. See the titles "Fraud 
and Deceit;" "Mistake." 

1. See generally the titles "Du- 
plicity;" "Joinder of Actions;" 
' ' Multifariousness. ' ' 

2. Cal.— Doudell v. Shoo, 20 Gal. 
App. 424, 129 Pac. 478, wherein the 
bill prayed for the establishment of the 
existence of the partnership and for 
an accounting, and also for an injunc- 
tion and the appointment of a re- 
ceiver. Ga.— Wells V. Strange, 5 Ga. 
22. Minn.— Palmer v. Tyler, 15 Minn. 
106, an accounting, the appointment of 
a receiver, that a fraudulent transfer 
be adjudged void and the property de 
livered to the receiver, and for an in 
junction against the transferee. 

3. Bremner v. Leavitt, 109 Cal. 130 
41 Pac. 859. 

4. Blakely v. Smock, 96 Wis. 611 
71 N. W. 1052. 

5. Corner v. Gilman, 53 Md. 364. 
See also Pa. — Luzier v. Naylor Line & 
Twine Co., 8 Pa. Dist. 632. Tenn. 
Carey v. Williams, 1 Lea 51. Wis. 
Dimond v. Henderson, 47 Wis. 172. 2 
N. W. 73. ' 



PABTNEBSHIP 



37 



an, action to take and settle partnership accounts,* although where the 
transactions are very closely intermingled, such claims are sometimes 
considered.'' 

(III.) Prayer.8 —The proper and ordinary form of prayer for set- 
tlement of an account between partners is, that an account may be 
taken by and under the decree and direction of the court, of all the 
partnership dealings and transactions between the complainant and 
the defendant.^ Although the prayer in such a suit should not be 
for a decree for a specific amount,^" yet such a prayer will not change 
the action into a mere demand for money.^^ A prayer for general re- 
lief authorizes all ordinary decrees which the pleadings and evidence 
may justify.'^ 

If the bill is filed pending the partnership, it must either directly 
pray for a dissolution, or show that a dissolution is contemplated.^^ 



6. Ark. — Jones v. Jones, 23 Ark. 212. 
Fla. — Nims V. Nims, 23 Fla. 69, 1 So. 
527; Robertson v. Baker, 11 Fla. 192, 
230. lU.— Hanks v. Baber, 53 111. 292. 
Ky. — Scott V. Perry's Admr., 17 Ky. 
L. Eep. 746, 32 S. W. 401. Mich.— Wells 
V. Babeoek, 56 Mich. 276, 22 N. W. 809, 
27 N. W. 575; Gordon v. Gordon, 49 
Mich. 501, 13 N. W. 834. Miss.— Free- 
man V. Finnall, Smed. & M. Ch. 623. 
N. J.— Smith V. Wood, 1 N. J. Eq. 74. 
Tenn. — Looney v. Gilleuwaters, 11 
Heisk. 133, cannot be included, if ex- 
cepted to. Tex. — Santleben v. Froboese, 
17 Tex. Civ. App. 626, 43 S. W. 571. 
Wis.— Green v. Stacy, 90 Wis. 46, 62 
N. W. 627; Smith v. Diamond, 86 Wis. 
359, 56 N. W. 922; Sprout v. Crowley, 
30 Wis. 187. 

Set-off of personal claim, see infra, 
I, C, 6, b, (II). 

7. Monroe v. Hamilton, 47 Ala. 217 
(mortgage upon defendant's share of 
the partnership assets to secure his in- 
dividual debt to complainant may be 
foreclosed in a suit for an accounting 
of the partnership between them); 
Evans v. Bryan, 95 N. C. 174, 59 Am. 
Eep. 233; Eoyster v. Johnson, 73 N. 0. 
474. 

[a] Individual Debt Growing Out 
of Partnership. — In stating an account 
between an executor and the surviving 
partner of the testator, it is not error 
to charge the surviving partner with 
the value of a note, due the testator of 
the plaintiff individually, if such note 
arose from, or grew out of the business 
of the copartnership. Eoyster v. John- 
son, 73 N. C. 474. 

8. See generally the title "Prayer," 
and 4 Standaed Peoc. 136. 

9. Ala. — Haynes v. Short, 88 Ala. 



562, 7 So. 157. lU.— Winchester v. 
Grosvenor, 48 111. 517; Quinu v. Mc- 
Mahau, 40 111. App. 593. Ind.— Miller 
V. Eapp, 135 Ind. 614, 34 N. E. 981, 35 
^. E. 693. La. — Eichard v. Mouton, 106 
La. 435, 30 So. 894. Ohio. — Peck v. 
Cavagna, 7 Ohio Dec. 142. Tex. — Wright 
V. Eoss, 30 Tex. Civ. App. 207, 70 S. W. 
234. W. Va.— Wood v. Wood, 50 W. 
Va. 570, 40 S. E. 416. 

[aj One Item. — The prayer should 
not a'sk for the settlement of but one 
item of the partnership account. 
Haynes v. Short, 88 Ala. 562, 7 So. 
157. 

[b] Prayer for Accounting Held To 
Be Included. — A prayer by one part- 
ner, that his copartner may be com- 
pelled to pay over to him one-half of 
the net profits of the partnership, 
includes within it a prayer that an 
account of the partnership may be 
taken. Bennett v. Woolfolk, 15 Ga. 
213. 

10. Eichard v. Mouton, 106 La. 435, 
30 So. 894; Arnold v. Sinclair, 11 
Mont. 556, 29 Pac. 340, 28 Am. St. 
Eep. 489. 

11. Ind. — Miller v. Eapp, 135 Ind. 
614, 34 N. E. 981, 35 N. E. 693. La. 
Eichard v. Mouton, 106 La. -J35, 30 
So. 894. Mont. — Arnold v. Sinclair, 
11 Mont. 556, 29 Pac. 340, 28 Am. 
St. Eep. 489. 

12. 111.— Veneman v. Buckle, 120 
111. App. 251. La. — Stark v. Howcott, 
118 La. 489, 43 So. 61. Borah v. 
O'Neill, 116 La. 672, 41 So. 29. Mich. 
Miller v. Casey, 176 Mich. 221, 142 
N. W. 589. 

13. Coville V. Gilman, 13 W. Va. 
314. 

Vol. XXI 



38 



PARTNERSHIP 



(IV.) Amendment. — The bill cr complaint may be amended in ac- 
cordance with the general rules elsewhere treated.^* 

b. Defensive Pleadings. — (I.) Generally. — The defendant 's plead- 
ings follow the general rules elsewhere treated. ^° A previous volun- 
tary final settlement must be specially pleaded.^* 

(11.) Set-off, Counterclaim and Kecoupment.iT —Though the right of a 
partner to plead a set-off or counterclaim in an action for a partner- 
ship accounting has been denied,^* the prevailing rule undoubtedly is 
that in such actions, where no creditors' rights intervene, a partner 
may within the limitations of the code provisions'^ assert any set-off,^° 



14. See the titles "Amendments 
and Jeofails;" "Bills and Answers;" 
"New Cause of Action or Defense." 

[a] An amendment setting up a 
general partnership in place of a 
special partnership alleged in the 
original bijl for an accounting is prop- 
erly permitted. Weber & Co. v. Kem- 
per Bros., 8 Ohio Dec. (Eeprint) 403, 
does not state a different cause of 
action. 

[b] Amendment of prayer to ask 
for equitable in place of legal relief, 
where complaint shows grounds for 
equitable relief. Walsh v. McKeen, 75 
Cal. 519, 17 Pac. 673. See generally 
1 Standard Prog. 925; 4 Standard 
PBGC. 195; 6 Standard Pbgc. 719. 

[c] Ambiguous averments as to the 
terms of the partnership may be 
amended. Rose v. Moate, 144 Ga. 316, 
87 S. E, 20. 

15. See 1 Standard Prog. 291; and 
also the titles "Bills and Amswers;" 
"Pleas In Equity." 

[a] A denial of the existence of 
the partnership must be supported by 
an answer and discovery as to every 
circumstance charged in the bill as 
evidence of the copartnership. Bverit 
V. Watts, 10 Paige (N. Y.) 82; Sanders 
V. King, 6 Mad. 61, 56 Eng. Eeprint 
1013. 

[b] A failure to answer the bill for 
an accounting admits all traversable 
averments therein. Acme Copying Co. 
17. McLure, 41 111. App. 397. 

[c] A demurrer for want of equity 
is the proper objection if the bill does 
not exhibit a case for the interference 
of a court of equity to settle the 
affairs of the partnership^ Eeed v. 
Johnson, 24 Me. 322. 

[d] Failure to object to lack of 
equitable jurisdiction, see Watts v. 
Adler, 130 N. Y. 646, 29 N. E. 131, 
3 Silv. 585, and 18 Standard Proc. 866 

16. Gleason v. Van Aernam, 9 Ore. 

Vol. XZI 



343. See 1 Standard Proc. 291. 

17. See generally the title "Set- 
off, Counterclaim and Eecoupment." 

18. Smith V. Diamond, 86 Wis. 359, 
56 N. W. 922. See also Pendleton v. 
Beyer, 94 Wis. 31, 68 N. W. 415. 

[a] "The reason is plain. A part- 
ner has no claim against his copartner. 
* * * But if he owes an individual debt 
to his copartner (as in the case just 
cited) the firm has nothing to do with 
it, and a claim therefor by the cred- 
itor partner cannot have any place in 
an action to dissolve the partnership 
and settle its affairs." Smith v. Dia- 
mond, 86 Wis. 359, 56 N. W. 922. 

19. See infra, this note. 

[a] The general code prorisions 
respecting counterclaim would permit 
(1)_ a partner to counterclaim, in an 
Action for accounting, for any cause of 
action arising out of the same trans- 
action or a transaction connected with 
the same subject matter (More v. 
Rand, 60 N. Y. 208; Brown v. Denni- 
son, 28 App. Div. 535, 51 N. Y. Supp. 
300), or (2) for any other cause of 
action on contract (Petrakion v. Ar- 
belly, 23 Civ. Proc. 183, 26 N. Y. Supp. 
731), (3) existing at the commence- 
ment of the accounting. Petrakion v. 
Arbelly, 23 Civ. Proc. 183, 26 N. Y 
Supp. 731. 

[b] That an accounting is an ac- 
tion on contract within the provisions 
of the code allowing a counterclaim in 
such cases as to any other cause of 
action on contract existing at the com- 
mencement of the action, see Petra- 
kion V. Arbelly, 23 Civ. Proc. 183, 26 
N. Y. Supp. 731. But see Smith v. 
Diamond, 86 Wis. 359, 56 N. W. 922. 

20. tJ. S.— Warren v. Burnham, 32 
led. 579. Ky.— Swafford's Admr v 
White, 28 Ky. L. Eep. 119, 89 S. W. 
129; Wathen v. Russell, 20 Ky. L. Ren 
709, 47 S. W. 437. N.' Y.-Newhall ?! 



PARTNERSHIP 



39 



counterclaim,^^ or recoupment,^^ which ,he may have. And inde- 
pendently of the codes he could avail himself of a legal,^^ or under 
certain circumstances, of an equitable^* set-off. 

(III.) Cross-Bill. -As a general rule, where a party's right to a de- 
cree depends upon affirmative matter, cross-demands or set-off, a cross- 
bill should be fUed,^° but in case of a partnership accounting the courts 
have recognized an exception to this rule^° by giving a judgment for 
a balance found due a defendant, even though no cross-bill is filed 
seeking the same.^^ But the exception only applies as to the adjust- 



Wyatt, 68 Hun 1, 22 N. Y. Supp. 828, 
52 N. Y. St. 456. 

[a] Though the accounting is 
among several partners a contract de- 
mand of one partner is available as 
a set-off or counterclaim against an- 
other as to whom a balance is due. 
Kenimerer v. Kemmerer, 85 Iowa 193, 
52 N. W. 194. 

fb] The Independent personal de- 
mands of one partner against another 
may be set off. Warren v. Burnham, 
32 Fed. 579; Watheu v. Eiiasell, 20 Ky. 
L. Eep. 709, 47 S. W. 437. 

[n] Where it arises in connection 
with the partnership (1) the claim 
may be set off or counterclaimed 
(Swaf ford's Admr. v. White, 28 Ky. 
L. Eep. 119, 89 S. W. 129'), unless (2) 
the demand is an item in the account- 
ing to be had (Eeeves v. Bushby, 25 
Misc. 226, 55 N. Y. Supp. 70), as for 
example, (3) a claim for a share of 
the expenses or outlays of the defend- 
ant in the business. Eeeves v. Bushby, 
25 MiBC. 226, 55 N. Y. Supp. 70. 

21. Kemmerer ■». Kemmerer, 85 
Iowa. 193, 52 N". W. 194; Eeeves v. 
Bushby, 25 Misc. 226, 55 N. Y. 
Supp. 70. 

[a] Indebtedness for moneys loaned 
to partner pleaded as counterclaim. 
Petrakion v. Arbelly, 23 Civ. Proc. 
183, 26 N. Y. Supp. 731. 

[b] Counterclaim dn a note due 
from plaintiff partner to one of de- 
fendant partners. Kemmerer v. Kem- 
merer, 85 Iowa 193, 52 N. W. 194. 

[e] A counterclaim for damages 
for fraud (1) in inducing the defend- 
ant to enter into the copartnership is 
pleadable (More v. Eand, 60 N. Y. 
208), though (2) the claim exist in 
favor of defendant partners jointly. 
More V. Eand, 60 N. Y. 208. 

[d] Claim for damages for violat- 
ing the partnership agreement proper 
subject of counterclaim. Brown v. 
Deiinison, 28 App. Div. 535, 51 N. Y. 
Supp. 300; Eeevesi v. Bushby, 25 Misc. 



226, 55 N. Y. Supp. 70. 

22. McConnell v. Stubbs, 124 Ga. 
1038, 53 S. E. 698. 

[aj Bscoupment for fraud and neg- 
lect resulting in damage to the firm. 
McConnell v. Stubbs, 124 Ga. 1038, 53 
S. E. 698. 

23. Jones v. Jones, 23 Ark. 212. 
[a] Money paid by one partner as 

the other's security may be set off 
against a sum found due the latter 
on partnership accounting to the ex- 
tent of extinguishing that claim, but 
cannot be made the foundation of a 
decree. Jones v. Jones, 23 Ark. 212. 

24. Pendleton v. Beyer, 94 Wis. 31, 
68 N. W. 415. But see Smith v. 
Diamond, 86 Wis. 359, 56 N. W. 922. 

[a] Where the plaintiS is insolvent 
equity may, independently of the stat- 
ute relating to set-offs, allow a set-off 
of claims of defendants against the 
plaintiff, upon which actions at law 
would be futile, even though such 
claims grow out of matters entirely 
outside the partnership transactions. 
Pendleton v. Bever, 94 Wis. 31, 68 
N. W. 415. 

25. Saunders v. Wood, 15 Ark. 24. 

26. Craig v. Chandler, 6 Colo. 543. 

27. Axk. — Saunders v. Wood, 15 
Ark. 24. Colo. — Craie v. Chandler, 6 
Colo. 543. 111. — Wilcoxon v. Wilcoxon, 
199 m. 244, 65 N. E. 229; House v. 
John Linn & Co.. 179 111. App. 114; 
Wilcoxon V. Wildoxon, 111 111. App. 
90. Me.— Little v. Merrill, 62 Me. 
328. Md.— Hunt v. Stuart, 53 Md. 
225; Grove v. Fresh, 9 Gill & J. 280; 
Hall V. McPherson, 3 Bland 529. Mich. 
Wyatt V. Sweet, 48 Mich. 539, 12 N. 
W. 692, 13 N. W. 525. N. H.— Eay- 
raond V. Came, 45 N. H. 201. N. J. 
Johnson v. Buttler, 31 N. J. Eq. 35; 
Scott V. Lalor's Exrs.. 18 N. J. Eq. 
301. N. Y.— White v. Eeed, 124 N. Y. 
468, 26 N. E. 1037; Cook v. Jenkins, 
79 N. Y. 575 Cvalue of partnership 
good will purchased bv plaintiff under 
an agreement is procer item of ac- 

Vol. XXI 



40 



PABTNEB8HIP 



ment of the partnership accounts,^* and if one of the defendants de- 
sires afSrmative relief upon grounds other than that of an adjust- 
ment and balancing the accounts of the partners, he must file a cross- 
bill therefor.29 

7. Issues, Proof and Variance. — In an action for a partnership 
accounting, any item connected with the accounting of the partnership 
business may be adjudicated.'" The amount of advances or loans made 
by a partner to the firm or of money paid or debts settled by him for 
the firm out of his private funds can be ascertained only in an action 
for an accounting.** Under an allegation that three persons were 



count to be conaideredl: Scott v. Pink- 
erton, 3 Edw. Ch. 70: Boyd v. Foot, 
5 Bosw. 110; Beeves v. Bushby, 25 
Misc. 226, 55 N. Y. Supp. 70. Teon. 
Fisher v. Stovall, 85 Tenn. 316, 2 S. 
W. 567; Allen v. Allen, 11 Heiak. 387. 
W. Va.— Hyre v. Lamb«rt, 37 W. Va. 
26, 16 S. B. 446. Wis. — Hutchinson v. 
Paige, 67 Wis. 206, 29 N. W. 908. 

i^ to wben cross-bill is unnecessary 
for aJ&imative relief generally, see 6 
Standard Proc. 267. 

[a] The benefit of the prayer of 
the bill is extended to the defendant 
as well as to the complainant, as to 
all matters within the scope of the 
bill. Wilcoxon v. Wilcoxon, 199 111. 
244, 65 N. E. 229. 

[b] Su'Ch decree as the equity of 
the case may require may be rendered 
irrespective of whether a cross-bill is 
filed. Wilcoxon v. ^ilcoxon, 199 111. 
244, 65 N. E. 229; Atkinson v. Cash, 
79 111. 53. 

[c] As between several defendants 
the rule applies and where a balance 
is found due from onei to the other, it 
may be awarded as if each was a 
plaintiff in a bill against the others. 
Acme Copying Co. v. McClure, 41 111. 
App. 397. 

fdj The decree for such balance Is 
said (1) to rest upon the plaintiff's 
bill (Craig v. Chandler, 6 Colo. 543), 
in (2) that he offers therein to do 
equity. House v. John Linn & Co., 
179 111. App. 114. (3) And even 
though no such offer is contained in 
the bill it will be presumed. Craig v. 
Chandler, 6 Colo. 543. 

28. Wilcoxon v. Wilcoxon, 199 111. 
244, 65 N. E. 229. 

29. Wilcoxon v. Wilcoxon, 199 111. 
244, 65 N. B. 229; Price v. Blackmore, 
65 111. 386; Norman v. Hudleston, 64 
111. 11; Helmer v. Yetzer, 92 Iowa 627, 
61 N. W. 206. 

[a] Recovery of Lossea. — Where 

Val. XXI 



defendant simply denies plaintiff's 
claim that a profit was made in their 
partnership business, and the evidence 
shows a loss, he cannot under such 
denial recover half of such loss from 
the plaintiff. Helmer v. Yetzer, 92 
Iowa 627, 61 N. W. 206. 

30. Lesh V. Davison, 181 Ind. 429, 
104 N. E. 642; Lesh v. Bailev, 49 Ind. 
App. 254, 71 N. E. 507; Burbank v. 
Oglesby, 35 La. Ann. 1201. 

[aj A claim for damages sustained 
through the misconduct of one partner 
in the management of the firm's busi- 
ness or affairs may be determined. 
Sweet V. Morrison, 103 N. Y. 235, 8 
N. B. 396; HoUister v. Simonson, 36 
App. Div. 63, 55 N". Y. Supp. 372; 
Reeves v. Bushby, 25 Misc. 226, 55 
N". Y. Supp. 70; Doupe v. Stewart, 13 
Grant Ch. (Can.) 637. 

[bj But injury to the individual 
property of one partner used in the 
partnership business is not a proper 
item for consideration in a partnership 
accounting. Haller v. Willamowicz, 23 
Ark. 566,^ remedy is in law. 

[c] _ The affairs of another company 
in_ which the parties are also partners, 
jointly with others, cannot be consid- 
ered. Bishop V. Bishop, 54 Conn. 232, 
6 Atl. 426, notwithstanding the parties' 
agreement that they might be settled. 

31. Ark.— Johnson v. Peck, 58 Ark. 
580, 25 S. W. 865. Conn.— Bishop i;. 
Bishop, 54 Conn. 232, 6 Atl. 426. Idaho. 
Haskins v. Curran, 4 Idaho 573, 43 
Pac. 559. Ind.— Coleman v. Coleman, 
78 Ind. 344. La.— Reddick v. White, 
46 La. Ann. 1198, 15 So. 487; Hen- 
negin v. Wilcoxon, 13 La. Ann. 576. 
N. J. — Davis V. Minch, 80 N. J. L. 
214, 76 Atl. 328; Sieghortner v. Weis- 
senborn, 20 N. J. Eq. 172; Hill v 
Beach, 12 N". J. Eq. 31. Ore.— Mc- 
Donald V. Holmes, 22 Ore. 212, 29 Pac. 
735. Pa.— Murray v. Herrick, 171 Pa. 
21, 32 Atl. 1125; Holbert c. Herrick, 



PABTNEBSHIP 



41 



partners, it may be shown, without amendment that but two consti- 
tuted the firm.^^ But where a cause of action is based upon an el- 
leged partnership between two persons, the failure to prove it as al- 
leged is not a mere variance but a ease of failure to prove the cause 
of action alleged.'^ 

8. Dismissal of Bill. — A partner who has filed a bill for a part- 
nership accounting may dismiss it in accordance with the general 
rules elsewhere discussed.^* After a bill for an accounting has reached 
a decree that the parties do account with each other,'" or that the part- 
nership be dissolved,^' no voluntary dismissal can be entered therein. 
The court will dismiss the bill praying for an account and settlement 
of the partnership affairs, where it is impossible, upon the pleadings 
and evidence, to ascertain what the account is and render a decree 
which will do justice between the parties.'^ Where matter, alleged 



171 Pa. 25, 32 Atl. 1125; Crow v. 
Green, 111 Pa. 637, 5 Atl. 23. Tex. 
Danforth v. Levin (Tex. Civ. App.), 
156 S. W. 569. 

See supra, I, A, 1, a. 

32. Chalmers v. Chalmers, 81 Cal. 
81, 22 Pac. 395; Bass v. Taylor, 34 
Miss. 342. 

S3. Buckley v. Kelly, 70 Conn. 411, 
39 Atl. 601 (where the bill asks for 
the settlement of the partnership as 
beginning from a certain date, the ac- 
counts of a partnership existing be- 
fore such date will not be considered, 
as it is a matter outside the plead- 
ings) ; Moran v. Bentley, 69 Conn. 392, 
37 Atl. 1092; Miller v. Casey, 176 Mich. 
221, 142 N. W. 589, allegation of exist- 
ence of partnership as to one trans- 
action not sustained by proof of a 
partnership between the parties as to 
another transaction. 

34. See the title "Dismissal, Dis- 
continuance and Nonsuit," and the 
following cases: HI. — Jackson v. Lahee, 
114 HI. 287, 2 N. E. 172. Mo.— Worth- 
ington V. White, 42 Mo. 462, wherein 
the plaintiff dismissed his bill after 
the receiver filed a report showing a 
full settlement of the partnership had 
been reached between the parties. 
N. J. — Ross V. Titsworth, 37 N. J. 
Eq. 333. N. Y. — Waring v. Eobinson, 
Hoffm. Ch. 524. 

[a] Not Where Defendant's Rights 
Would Be Prejudiced. — Worthington v. 
White, 42 Mo. 462; Price v. Price, 21 
App. Div. 597, 47 N. Y. Supp. 772. See 
generally 7 Standard Proc. 656. 

[bl As Against Creditors. — After 
the partnership assets are taken into 
the possession of a receiver and the 



partnership creditors are notified by 
the court to establish their claims, 
the partners will not be permitted td 
dismiss the suit without the consent 
of the creditors. lU. — Jackson v. Lahee, 
114 111. 287, 2 N. E. 172. N. J.— Boss 
V. Titsworth, 37 N. J. Eq. 333. N. Y. 
Holmes v. McDowell, 15 Hun 585 {af- 
firmed in 76 N. T. 596); Waring «. 
Eobinson, Hoffm. Ch. 524. B. I. — Up- 
dike V. Doyle, 7 B. I. 446. 

35. lU. — ^Wilcoxon v. Wileoxon, 111 
111. App. 90. Md. — Hall v. MoPherson, 
3 Bland 529. N. Y.— Waring v. Eob- 
inson, Hoffm. Ch. 524. E. I. — Updike 
i\ Doyle, 7 E. I. 446. Tenn. — Fisher 
V. Stovall, 85 Tenn. 316, 2 S. W. 567. 
Wis. — Hutchinson v. Paige, 67 Wis. 
206, 29 N. W. 908. 

36. Adams v. Woods, 8 Cal. 152, 68 
Am. Dec. 313; Adams v. Hackett, 7 
Cal. 187. 

37. Del. — Davidson v. Wilson, 3 Del. 
Ch. 307. D. O.— Eick v. Neitzy, 1 
Mackey 21. Tla. — Nims v. Nims, 23 
Fla. 69, 1 So. 527; Marvin v. Hamp- 
ton, 18 Fla. 131. 111.— Vermillion v. 
Baitey, 27 HI. 230. Ky. — Clement v. 
Ditterline 's Admr., 11 Ky. L. Eep. 
294, 11 S. W. 658; Hyatt v. Kennedy, 
9 Ky. L. Eep. 860; Bradford v. Ware's 
Exr., 6 Ky. L. Eep. 304. La.— Suc- 
cession of Gassie, 42 La. Ann. 239, 7 
So. 454. Md.— Hall v. Clagett, 48 Md. 
223, 243. N. J.— Stout v. Seabrook's 
Exrs., 30 N. J. Eq. 187. Ohio.— Ogles- 
hy V. Thompson, 59 Ohio St. 60, 63, 
51 N. E. 878. Ore.— Ashley v. Wil- 
liams, 17 Ore. 441, 21 Pac. 556. Tenn. 
Maupin v. Daniel, 3 Tenn. Ch. 223. 
Va.— Slater, Myers & Co. v. Arnett, 81 
Va. 432. 

Vol. XXI 



42 



PABTNEBSHIP 



in bar of an accounting, is sustained by the proof, the bill should be 
dismissed.^* 

9. Trial. — a. Jury Trial. — The general rule that neither party 
to an equitable action has a right to demand, a jury triaP® applies in a 
suit for an accounting of a partnership.*" But the judge may, as 
in other equity eases, use a jury in an advisory capacity and submit 
to it for determination such issues as he may choose.*^ 

b. Disposition of Matters in Bar. — All matters in bar of an ac- 
counting must first be disposed of before a decree for an accounting 
can be granted.*^ Thus the existence of the partnership, if denied, 
must be first proved,*^ and the issue of an alleged account stated be- 
tween the partners must likewise be determined in the negative.** 

The hearing upon a bill for accounting between partners is con- 
ducted in the same manner as other suits in equity.*^ 



38. Auld V. Butcher, 2 Kan. 135. 
As to order of proof aa to matters 

alleged In bar, see infra, 1, C, 9, b. 

[.a] Upon the finding that an al- 
leged partner is not a member of the 
firm, a nonsuit should be entered as 
to him. Chalmers v. Chalmers, 81 Cal. 
81, 22 Pac. 395. 

39. See 8 Standard Peoo. 496, and 
16 Standard Peoc. 879. 

40. Ind. — Horn v. Lupton, 182 Ind. 
355, 105 N. E. 237, 106 N. E. 708. 
Misin. — Shipley v. Belduo, 93 Minn. 
414, 101 N. W. 952; Berkey v. Judd, 
34 Minn. 394. Tex. — Hengy v. Hengy 
(Tex. Civ. App.), 151 S. W. 1127. 
Wash. — Hamar v. Peterson, 9 Wash. 
152, 37 Pac. 309. W. Va.— Mahnke 
V. Neale, 23 W. Va. 57. 

41. Cal.— Haight v. Haight, 151 Cal. 
90, 90 Pac. 197. Kan. — Carlin v. Don- 
egan, 15 Kan. 495. Minn. — Cobb v. 
Cole, 44 Minn. 278, 46 N. W. 364. 
Mont. — Lenahan v. Casey, 46 Mont. 
367, 128 Pac. 601; Arnold v. Sinclair, 
11 Mont. 556, 29 Pac. 340, 28 Am. 
St. Eep. 489, existence of partnership. 
Tex. — Hengy v. Hengy (Tex. Civ. 
App.), 161 S. W. 1127. Va.— Slaugh- 
ter V. Banner, 102 Va. 270, 46 S. E, 

- 289. W. Va.— Mahnke v. Neale, 23 W. 
Va. 57. 

42. Kan. — Auld v. Butcher, 2 Kan. 
135. N". J. — Hudson v. Trenton L. & 
M. Mfg. Co., 16 N. J. Eq. 475. N. 0. 
Smith V. Barringer, 74 N. C. 665. Pa. 
In re Dampf's Appeal, 106 Pa. 72. 
Vt.— Spaulding v. Holmies, ^5 Vt. 491. 

[a] A denial of plaintiff's allega- 
tion of an indebtedness to him makes 
it necessary for him to show at least 
a probable indebtedness, before an ac- 
counting will be ordered. Hunt v. Gor- 
don, 52 Miss. 194. 

Vol. XXI 



43. U. S. — Gray v. Larrimore, 4 
Sawy. 638, 2 Abb. 542, 10 Fed. Gas. 
No. 5,721. Ark.— La Cotts i). Pike, 91 
Ark. 26, 120 S. W. 144, 134 Am. St. 
Eep. 48. Cal. — Hart v. Finigan, 71 
Cal. 578, 12 Pac. 682. Conn.— Moran 
r. Bentley, 69 Conn. 392, 37 Atl. 1092. 
Del.— Beybold v. Dodd's Admr., 1 
Harr. 401, 26 Am. Dec. 401. Fla. 
Nima v. Nims, 20 Fla. 204. Minn. 
Bruner v. Jacobson, 115 Minn. 425, 132 
N. W. 995. N. Y.— Arnold v. Angell, 
62 N. Y. 508; Salter v. Ham, 31 N. Y. 
321; Low V. Swartwout, 171 App. Div. 
725, 157 N. Y. Supp. 1067; Freeman 
V. Miller, 157 App. Div. 715, 142 N. Y. 
Supp. 797. Ohio.— Peek v. Cavagna, 7 
Ohio Deo. 142. Ore. — Ashley v. Wil- 
liams, 17 Ore. 441, 21 Pae. 556. Pa. 
In re Christy's Appeal, 92 Pa. 157; 
Collyer v. CoUyer, 38 Pa. 257. S. C. 
Askew 'a Bepresentatives v. Poyas, 2 
Desaus. Eq. 145. Utah.— Kahn t;. Cen- 
tral Smelting Co., 2 Utah 371. W. Va. 
Lantz V. Tumlin, 74 W. Va. 196 81 
S. E. 820. 

[a] Failure to prove the alleged 
partnership defeats the plaintiff's ac- 
tion. Adams v. Gaubert, 69 111. 585; 
Vermillion v. Bailey, 27 111. 230; Ar- 
nold V. Angell, 62 N. Y. 508. 

44. Kan.— Auld v. Butcher, 2 Kan. 
135. N. J. — Dickey v. Allen, 2 N. J. 
Eq. 40. N. Y.— Heartt v. Corning, 3 
Paige 566. N. C— Clements v. Rogere, 
95 N. G. 248; Smith v. Barringer, 74 
N. C. 665; Price v Eceles, 73 N C 
162. 

45. "Wilkinson v. Tilden, 9 Fed. 683. 
Afl to the power of the court to 

compel the production of booka for the 
inspection of the adversary, see gen- 
erally, 7 Standard Pkoc. 605. 



PARTNERSHIP 



43 



10. Rererence To Take Account. — a. In General.*" — In a bill 
for the accounting and settlement of a partnership business where the 
items of account are many or complicated, the judge may, within his 
discretion, refer all,*' or any part** of the facts to a master or auditor, 
or other like officer, to investigate and report the result to the court. 
The general rule is that the facts which relate to the gist of the ac- 
tion, and which the plaintiff is bound to prove to entitle him to relief ;*® 
must be proved in the first instance before the reference is made,""" 
thus a reference to account cannot be ordered until it has first been 
determined whether the parties are or were partners,^^ whether such 
an accounting is necessary.^^ The court may order a reference of its 
own motion,^^ and without the consent of the partners.^* 

Instructions to Referee, Auditor, etc. —In its order of reference, the 
court should settle the principles of the accounting and put them in 
the form of instructions to its officer.^" 

The procedure before a master for a partnership accounting is the 
same as in other cases where a reference is made.'° 

b. Form of Report.^'' — Where a partnership account is referred 
to a master, his report should state the account in such manner that 
the court may judge whether it is correct ;°* and to enable it to set- 



See generally the title "Hearing." 
[a] An accounting between part- 
ners cannot be had on affidavits on an 
interlocutory motion; it must be had 
in the orderly progress of a suit. Wil- 
kinson V. Tilden, 9 Fed. 683; Wickea 
V. Hatch, 103 App. Div. 426, 92 N. T. 
Supp. 1017. 

46. See generally the title "Refer- 
ences." 

47. Ga. — Smith v. Smith, 135 Ga. 
582, 69 S. E. 1110. la. — ^Levi v. Kar- 
riek, 8 Iowa 150. Ky. — ^Bush v. Stam- 
per, 22 Ky. L. Rep. 1592, 61 8. W. 
267. Mich. — ^Eoelofs v. Wever, 119 
Mich. 334, 78 N. W. 136. Okla.— Con- 
ley V. Horner, 10 Okla. 277, 62 Pac. 
807. S. C— Bouland v. Carpin, 27 S. 
C. 235, 3 S. B. 219. 

48. Smith v. Smith, 135 Ga. 582, 69 
S. E. 1110; Bouland v. Carpin, 27 S. C. 
235, 3 S. E. 219. 

49. As to disposition of matters in 
bar, see supra, I, C, 9, b. 

50. Hunt V. Gorden, 52 Miss. 194. 

51. Arki — Fullenwider v. Bank of 
Waldo, 101 Ark. 259, 142 S. W. 149. 
N. Y. — Bantes v. Brady, 8 How. Pr. 
216; Jonea v. Lester, 77 App. Div. 
174', 78 N. Y. Supp. 1000; MeCall v. 
Moschowitz, 14 Daly 16, 10 Civ. Proc. 
107, 1 N. Y. St. 99. Pa.— In re Dampf s 
Appeal, 106 Pa. 72. 

Compare McPeters «. Ray, 85 N. C. 
462. 
62. Hunt V. Gorden, 52 Mias. 194; 



Diehl V. Dreyer, 84 App. Div. 247, 82 
N. Y. Supp. 770; 

[a] Whether there has been a full 
adjustment and settlement between 
the partners, as alleged by defendant. 
Wynkoop v. Wynkoop, 119 App. Div. 
679, 104 N. Y. Supp. 296. 

53. Conley v. Horner, 10 Okla. 277, 
62 Pae. 807. 

54. Conley v. Horner, 10 Okla. 277, 
62 Pae. 807. 

55. Ark. — Bernie v. Vandever, 16 
Ark. 616. Miss. — Randle v. Richard- 
son, 53 Miss. 176; Hunt v. Gorden, 52 
Miss. 194. N. Y. — Kowing v. Manly, 
2 Abb. Pr. N. S. 377, wherein the court 
particularly sets forth the special in- 
structions to be given the master in 
case one partner continues in business 
and uses the firm property without an 
accounting. 

56. See generally the title "Ref- 
erences," and Brockman v. Aulger, 12 
HI. 277. 

57. See 9 Standard Proc. 1043, 
1046, and the title "References." 

58. Nims v. Nims, 20 Pla. 204; 
Brockman v. Aulger, 12 111. 277, stat- 
ing the amount only found due to one 
of the partners is not sufficient. See 
Hunt V. Gorden, 52 Miss. 194. 

[a] The master should state his ac- 
count at length (1) and his findings 
so that they will be intelligible, and 
that the court may see the correct- 
ness of the master's inferences. Nims 

Vol. XXI 



44 



PARTNERSHIP 



tie, on an equitable basis, the accounts between the partners.'* Wheth- 
er the partnership resulted in a profit or loss, and to what extent 
should be shown.*" 

c. Effect of Report. — The effect of the referee's report is deter- 
mined in accordance with general principles elsewhere treated.*^ 

11. Determination and Decree.*^ — A court of equity, having ac- 
quired jurisdiction for the settlement of the accounts and dissolution 
of the partnership, will proceed to the complete determination of all 
controversies touching the partnership, of its demands against the 
members, and their claims against the firm,*^ but not of the demands. 



■17. Nims, 20 Fla. 204. See Lannan v. 
Clavin, 3 Kan. 17, where impossible to 
give details. (2) A report sufficiently 
itemizes the amounts found to be due 
to the complainant without giving the 
details of the several items, where the 
itemized statement leaves no doubt as 
to what was included in the fotal. 
Shadburne' v. Sbarbaro, 182 111. App. 
54. 

[b] The evidence upon which the 
conclusions of the referee are based 
need not be set forth in his report, 
unless exception be taken to any of 
the referee's conclusions, when so 
much of the evidence as is necessary 
to bring the matter intelligently be- 
fore the court must be contained in 
the report. Young v. Winkley, 191 
Mass. 570, 78 N. E. 377. 

[c] The report need not particular- 
ly describe the assets found to be- 
long to the partnership. Stower v. 
Kamphefner, 6 Cal. App. 80, 91 Pae. 
424. 

[d] Where the report is made after 
the partnership property is attached 
for the separate debt of one of the 
partners, it should show whether the 
property was partnership property, 
and what was the interest of the 
debtor partner therein at the time of 
the attachment. Johnson v. Sanford, 
13 Conn. 461. 

59. Patterson v. Kellogg, 53 Conn. 
38, 22 Atl. 1096. 

60. Ala.- — Zimmerman v. Huber, 29 
Ala. 379. Fla.— Nims v. Nims, 20 Fla. 
204. Ky. — Honore v. Colmesnil, 1 J. J. 
Marsh. 506. Miss. — Kandle v. Biehard- 
son, 53 Miss. 176. 

61. See the title "References." 
[a] Advisory Only. — U. S. — Van 

Tine v. Hilands, 142 Fed. 613. Mo. 
Johnson v. Ewald, 82 Mo. App. 276. 
N. y. — Donnelly v. McArdle, 152 App. 
Div. 805, 137 N. Y. Supp. 801; Smith 
V. Fitchett, 56 Hun 473, 10 N. Y. 

Vol. XXI 



Supp. 459, 31 N. Y. St. 606. Pa. 
In re Lobb's Appeal, 3 Walk. 374. 

[a] Findings approved by the court 
are as binding on the appellate court 
as the verdict of a jury. Noble v. 
Faull, 26 Colo. 467, 58 Pae. 681. 

62. See generally the titles "De- 
crees;" "Judgments." 

63. Ala. — Northen v. Tatum, 164 
Ala. 368, 51 So. 17. Ark.— Saunders 
v. Wood, 15 Ark. 24. Cal.— Clark v. 
Hewitt; 136 Cal. 77, 68 Pae. 303; Hop- 
kins V. Warner, 109 Cal. 133, 41 Pae. 
868; Nisbet v. Nash, 52 Cal. 540; 
Bassaert v. Mensch, 17 Cal. App. 637, 
120 Pae. 1072; Durphy v. Pearsall, 
6 Cal. App. 54, 91 Pae. 407. Colo. 
Craig V. Chandler, 6 Colo. 543. Ga. 
Epping V. Aiken, 71 Ga. 682. ni. 
Wilcoxon V. WUeoxon, 199 111. 244, 65 
N. E. 229; Veneman v. Ruckle, 120 
111. App. 251; Johnson v. Miller, 50 111. 
App. 60. Kan.— Carter v. Christie, 57 
Kan. 492, 46 Pae. 964; Lord v. An- 
derson, 16 Kan. 185. Ky. — Maude v. 
Rodes, 4 Dana 144. Me.— Little v. 
Merrill, 62 Me. 328. Md.— Grove v. 
Fresh, 9 Gill & J. 280. Mass.— Grif- 
fith V. Kirley, 189 Mass. 522', 76 N. E. 
201. Mich. — McLean v. McLean, 109 
Mieh. 258, 67 N. W. 118. Minn.— Walsh 
». St. Paul School Furn. Co., 60 Minn. 
397, 62 N. W. 383, will distribute as- 
sets to creditors in case of insolvency 
of the firm. N. H.— Eaymond v. Came, 
45 N. H. 201. N. Y.— Rhiner v. Sweet 
2 Lans. 386; Hayes v. Reese, 34 Barb. 
151; Blake v. Barnes, 63 Hun 633j 18 
N. Y. Supp. 471, 28 Abb. N. C. 401, 
45 N. Y. St. 130. N. D.— Oustad v. 
Hahn, 27 N. D. 334, 146 N. W. 557. 
Ohio.— Gray v. Kerr, 46 Ohio St. 652, 
23 N. E. 136. Ora— Fleming v. Car- 
son, 37 Ore. 252, 62 Pae. 374; Durk- 
heimer v. Heilner, 24 Ore. 270, 33 Pae. 
401, 34 Pae. 475; Ashley v. Williams, 
17 Ore. 441, 21 Pae. 556; Gleason v. 
Van Aernam, & Ore. 343. Pa..— Me- 



PABTNEBSHIP 



45 



of one partner individually against another as an individual."* The 
decree should be a final adjudication of the rights of the parties,"' 
and sh aid conform to the pleadings and proof,"" and be sustained by 
the findings."' Real estate constituting part of the assets of the dis- 
solved partnership should be treated as personalty;"' under some 
circumstances, however, it has been held proper to decree it to one 
partner alone, "^ or to all the partners as tenants in common.'" In 
decreeing the dissolution of a partnership, the court may declare at 
what date the partnership shall be at an end.'^ 

Personai Decree. — No personal decree should be rendered against 
one in favor of the other partner for any sum until the partnership 
assets have been collected and applied to the partnership obligations, 



Ginn v. Benner, 22 Pa. Super. 134. 
Tenn. — Maupin v. Daniel, 3 Tenn. Ch. 
223. Vt. — Whitcomb v. Whiteomb, 85 
Vt. 76, 81 Atl. 97, Ann. Cas. 1913E, 
, 1015, may compel partner to assign 
to the firm a patent adjudged to be- 
long to it. Wash. — Yarwood v. Billings, 
31 Wash. 542, 72 Pac. 104. W. Va. 
Gore V. Vines, 72 W. Va. 783, 79 S. E. 
820; Carper v. Hawkins. 8 W. Va. 291. 
Wis. — Strang v. Thomas, 114 Wis. 599, 
91 N. W. 237; Singer v. Heller, 40 
Wis. 544. 

[a] Good Will. — Where the defend- 
ant has taken exclusive possession of 
the firm property to which the good 
will is attached, and is carrying on 
the business as though he were the 
purchaser of it, the court may regard 
the defendant, so far as respects the 
good will, ag though he had purchased 
under an order of the court for the 
sale of the property and good will, 
and therefore that he should be charged 
with the value of the good will. Grif- 
fith V. Kirley, 189 Mass. 522, 76 N. E. 
201. 

[b] A dissolution of the partner- 
ship may be decreed although not 
specifically asked for, where it appears 
that relief can be had only by dis- 
solution. Loscombe v. Bussell, 4 Sim. 
8, 58 Eng. Beprint 4. 

64. Ark. — Jones v. Jones, 23 Ark. 
212. HI.— Hanks v. Baber, 53 HI. 292. 
Wis. — Green v. Stacy, 90 Wis. 46, 62 
N. W. 627; Smith v. Diamond, 86 Wis. 
359, 56 N. W. 922. 

65. Kayser v. Maugham, 8 Colo. 
232, 6 Pac. 803. 

66. Clark v. Hall. 54 Neb. 479, 74 
N. W. 856; Arnold v. Angell, 62 N. Y. 
508. See 15 Standard Peoc. 35. 

67. Williams v. Williams, 104 Cal. 
85, 37 Pac. 784. See Clark v. Gallaher, 
3 Tex. Civ. App. 541, 22 S. W. 1047, 



must be warranted by the findings. 

68. Moran v. Melnerney, 129 Cal. 
29', 61 Pac. 575, 948. 

[a] It is improper for the court 
to decree that the plaintiff be let into 
joint possession with the defendants 
of an undivided one-half of such part- 
nership real property, but it must be 
ordered sold and the residue, after pay- 
ing debts, distributed. Moran v. Me- 
lnerney, 129 Cal. 29, 61 Pac. 575, 948. 

[b] A decree for partition of the 
partnership's real property cannot be 
sustained, for partition is not an in- 
cident to a suit for accounting, and 
the partners have a right usually to 
have the assets disposed of, if they 
choose. If not disposed of, all that 
could be done would be to leave the 
land' as a distinct tenancy in common, 
so that the tenants could have it par- 
titioned in a separate suit if they 
should see fit. Godfrey v. White, 43 
Mich. 171, 5 N. W. 243. 

69. Clearkin v. Taheny, 256 Pa. 615, 
100 Atl. 1053, where the realty was 
given to one partner in satisfaction of 
the excess contributed by him to the 
business, with provision that he file 
a bond indemnifying the other partner 
against liability for any firm debts. 

70. Tenney v. Simpson, 37 Kan. 579, 
15 Pac. 512, wherein the sole asset 
of the partnership was realty. The 
judgment was that each partner have 
an undivided one-half of such prop- 
erty, there being no creditors of the 
partnership, and that as the account- 
ing showed that one partner was the 
creditor of the other, a personal judg- 
ment in his favor for the amount of 
such balance should be entered and 
made a lien upon the debtor partner''* 
one-half interest. 

71. Ala. — Dumont v. Eueppreeli|, 
38 Ala. 175. Ohio. — Durbin v. Barbei> 

Vol. ssi 



46 



PABTNEBSHIP 



and then the balance due the other partner ascertaiined.'''' The judg- 
iment in favor of one partner for a balance should be against the oth- 
ers severally and not jointly, in the proportion in which the facts 
show them to be liable,'^ unless the circumstances show such concert 
of action as to create a joint liability for the whole amount due.'* 

Effect of Decree. — An interlocutory decree to account is decisive of 
the existence of a partnership but not of its extent or terms.'° Where 
the decree for dissolution and an accounting provides for the partner- 
ship creditbrs,'^ a creditor may be enjoined from proceeding at law 
thereafter for the collection of his debt.''' The decree as such has no 
effect on partnership property situated in another state,'^ but through 
its jurisdiction and control over the parties themselves the court may 
control their action with respect to partnership matters in another 
state." 

12, Costs.^" — Generally, the partnership assets are chargeable 
with the costs incurred in the settlement and accounting,^^ though 



14 Ohio 311. Bng.— Besch v. Frolich, 
1 Ph. 172, 12 L. J. Ch. 118, 7 Jur. 
73, 41 En^ Beprint 597 (will not 
make the decree retrospective); Lyon 
V. Tweddell, -50 L. J. Ch. 571, 29 "Wkly. 
Eep. 689, dissolution should be dated 
from the judgment and not from the 
issuing of the writ. 

72. Oal.— Clark v. Hewitt, 136 Cal. 
77, 68 Pac. 303; Easaaert v. Mensch, 
17 Cal. App. 637, 120 Pac. 1072; Stower 
V. Kamphefner, 6 Cal. App. 80, 91 
Pac. 424. 111. — Eosenstiel v. Gray, 112 
111. 282. But see Shadburne v. Sbar- 
baro, 182 111. App. 54. la.. — Bank of 
Percival v. Farmers' Nat. Bank, 162 
N. "W. 21; Johnson v. Mantz, 69 Iowa 
710, 27 N. W. 467. Kan. — McGillvray 
V. Mosef, 43 Kan. 219, 28 Pac. 96. 
But see Tenney v. Simpson, 37 Kan. 
579, 15 Pac. 512. Ky. — Turner 's Admr. 
V. Turner, 9 Ky. L. Rep. 456, 5 S. W. 
457. La. — Pratt v. McHatton, 11 La. 
Ann. 260. Mass. — Paine v. Paine, 15 
Gray 299; T^ng v. Thayer, 8 Allen 
391. N. y. — Hayes v. Reese, 34 Barb. 
151. N. 0. — Allison v. Davidson, 17 
N. C. 79. Ohio. — Ogleaby v. Thomp- 
son, 59 Ohio St. 60, 51 N. E. 878. 
Okla. — ^Baughman v. Hebard, 166 Pac. 
88. W. Va.— Jones v. Rose, 94 S. E. 
41; Lantz v. Tumlin, 74 W. Va. 196, 
81 S. E. 820; Steele v. Moore, 71 W. 
Va. 436, 76 S. E. 850; Bartlett v. 
Boyles, 66 W. Va. 327, 66 S. E. 474. 
Wis.-— Green v. Stacy, 90 Wis. 46, 62 
N. W. 627. Eng.— Wild v. Milne, 26 
Beav. 504, 53 Eng. Reprint 993. 

[a] No final decree can be made 
while debts due from the firm remain 
unadjusted. CaL — Albery v, Geis, 1 

Vol. XXI 



Cal. App. 381, 82 Pac. 262. Conn. 
Mickle V. Peet, 43 Conn. 65. W. Va. 
Hyre v. Lambert, 37 W. Va. 26, 16 
S. E. 446. Wis.— Green v. Stacy, 90 
Wis. 46, 62 N. W. 627. 

[b] But if justice is done and no 
objection raised, the failure of the 
decree to contain an order for the sale 
of the property will not make it er- 
roneous. Johnson v. Mantz, 69 Iowa 
710, 27 N. W. 467. 

73. la. — Starr v. Case, 59 Iowa 491, 
13 N. W. 645; Levi v. Karrick, 8 Iowa 
150. N. Y.^Rhiner v. Sweet, 2 Lans. 
386. Ore. — Bloomfield v. Buchanan, 14 
Ore. 181, 12 Pac. 238. Eng.— Ex parte 
Marlin, 2 Bro. C. C. 15, 29 Eng. Re- 
print 8. 

74. Bloomfield v. Buchanan, 14 Ore. 
181, 12 Pac. 238, wherein the defend- 
ants by concert of action excluded 
plaintiff from all participation in the 
business, and from all knowledge of 
the books or accounts. 

75. Eeybold v. Dodd's Admr., 1 
Harr. (Del.) 401, 26 Am. Dec. 401. 

76. See supra, I, C, 3, b, (IV). 

[a] Does not discharge the debt. 
Schnell v. Schnell, 39 Ind. App. 556, 
80 N. E. 432. 

77. Cal. — Adams v. Hackett, 7 Cal. 
187. N. Y. — Waring v. Robinson, 
Hoffm. Ch. 524. B. I.— Updike v. 
Doyle, 7 E. L 446. 

78. Williams v. Williams, 83 Misc. 
560, 145 N. Y. Supp. 564. 

79. Williams v. Williams, 83 Misc. 
560, 145 N. Y. Supp. 564. See 17 
Standard Proc. 780, et seq. 

80. See the title "Costs." 

81. m. — Mariner v. Gilchrist, 280 



PARTNERSHIP 



47 



it is within the discretion of the court to apportion the costs against 
the parties as he may deem proper and equitable.'^ 

II. ACTIONS OR PROCEEDINGS BETWEEN PARTNERS 
AND THIRD PERSONS. — A. Jueisdiction and Venue. — Actions 
between partners and third persons follow the general principles else- 



Ill. 544, 117 N. E. 695. Ky.— Swafford 's 
Admr. v. White, 28 Ky. L. Eep. 119, 
89 S. "W. 129; Green v. Hart, 27 Ky. 
L. Eep. 870, 87 S. W. 315; Lyford's 
Exrx. V. Haines, 21 Ky. L. Eep. 948, 
53 S. W. 646. La. — ^Baxter v. Hewes, 
45 La. Ann. 1065, 13 So. 864; Burke 
V. Fuller, 41 La. Ann. 740, 6 So. 557; 
Philpot 17. Patterson, 5 Mart. (N. S.) 
273, coBts of lawsuit decreed against 
defendant, and the expenses and 
charges which accrued in taking the 
account decreed against the partner- 
ship a.ssets. Md. — Stevens v. Teat- 
man, 19 Md. 480. Mass. — Whitney v. 
Cook, 5 Mass. 139. N. Y. — Hopfen- 
sack V. Hopfensack, 9 Daly 457, 61 
How. Pr. 498; Masters v. Brooks, 132 
App. Div. 874, 117 N. Y. Supp. 585; 
Crotty V. Jarvis, 1 Misc. 316, 20 N. Y. 
Supp. 728, 48 N. Y. St. 781. N. C. 
Taylor v. Cawthorne, 17 N. C. 221. 
Ohio. — Wehrman v. McFarland, 10 Ohio 
Dec. 320, 8 Ohio N. P. 673; Payne v. 
McNamara, 6 Ohio Cir. Dec. 62. Ore. 
Fleming v. Carson, 37 Ore. 252, 62 
Pac. 374. Pa. — Gordon v. Moore, 134 
Pa. 486, 19 Atl. 753; In re Gyger's 
Appeal, 62 Pa. 73. 1 Am. Eep. 382. 
Erig. — Hamer v. Giles, 11 Ch. Div. 
942, 48 L. J. Ch. 508, 41 L. T. N. S. 
270, 27 Wkly. Eep. 834; Bonville v. 
Bonville, 35 Beav. 129, 55 Eng. Ee- 
print 844; Eowlands v. Evans, 14 
Wkly. Eep. 882; Timothy v. Hindley, 
14 Wkly. Eep. 382. Can. — ^Bingham 
V. Smith, 16 Grant Ch. 373; Curran v. 
Carey, 4 Manitoba 450; Chapman ». 
Newell, 14 Ont. Pr. 208. 

fa] As a general rule, in a suit 
for a partnership accounting and set- 
tlement, the costs should be charged 
to the partnership fund, either where 
the suit is necessary or beneflcial to 
both parties, or where both are in 
fault; and may- be imposed upon one 
party only, as a punishment, if he has 
been guilty of misconduct rendering 
necessary a resort to legal proceedings. 
N. C— Taylor v. Cawthorne, 17 N. C. 
221. Ore. — Fleming v. Carson, 37 Ore. 
252, 62 Pao. 374. Eng. — Hamer v. 
Giles, 11 Ch. Div. 942, 48 L. J. Ch. 
508, 41 L. T, N, S. 370, 27 Wkly. Eep. 



834. Can. — Curra,n v. Carey, 4 Man- 
itoba 450; Chapman v. Newell, 14 Ont. 
Pr. 208. 

[b] A receiver is entitled to be 
paid his costs out of the partnership 
assets as a matter of course. Hopfen- 
sack V. Hopfensack, 9 Daly (N. Y.) 
457, 61 How. Pr. 498. 

82. Cal. — Faulkner v. Hendy, 79 
Cal. 265, 21 Pac. 754, opposite party 
will not be required to pay as costs, 
for the services of an expert account- 
ant employed by the other partner for 
his own benefit. Ga.^Smith v. Smith, 
135 Ga. 582, 69 S. E. 1110 (auditor's 
fees); Houston v. Polk, 124 Ga. 103, 
52 S. B. 83. lU.— Taft v. Schwamb, 
80 ni. 289. la.— Starr v. Case, 59 Iowa 
491, 13 N. W. 645. Kan.— Smith v. 
Harris, 88 Kan. 226, 128 Pac. 378; 
McGUlvray v. Moser, 43 Kan. 219, 23 
Pac. 96. Ky. — Caldwell v. Lang, 31 
Ky. L. Eep. 237, 101 S. W. 972; Dyer 
V. Ballinger, 24 Ky. L. Eep. 1918, 72 
S. W. 738; Broeg v. Pool's Admr., 22 
Ky. L. Eep. 1354, 60 S. W. 518; Mc- 
Burnie v. Semple, 14 Ky. L. Eep. 30, 
19 S. W. 183. La.— Borah v. O'Niell, 
121 La. 733, 46 So. 788; Eiohard v. 
Mouton, 109 La. 465, 33 So. 563. Mo. 
Campbell v. Coquard, 16 Mo. App. 552. 
N. J.— Patrick v. Patrick, 71 N. J. Eq. 
347, 63 Atl. 848. N. Y.— Smith v. 
TInderhill, 64 Hun 639, 19 N. Y. Supp. 
249, 47 N. Y. ' St. 23. Ore.— Fleming 
V. Carson, 37 Ore. 252, 62 Pac. 374; 
In re Beck & Son's Estate, 19 Ore. 
503, 24 Pac. 1038. Pa. — In re Gyger's 
Appeal, 62 Pa. 73, 1 Am. Eep. 382; 
In re Lobb's Appeal, 3 Walk. 374; 
Gordon v. Moore, 8 Pa. Co. Ct. 289. 
S. C— Kennedy v. Hill, 89 S. C. 462, 
71 S. E. 974. Tex. — Navarro v. La- 
maua (Tex. Civ. App.), 179 S. W. 922; 
Baker v. Milde (Tex. Civ. App.), 33 
S. W. 152. Wash. — Boothe v. Summit 
Coal Min. Co., 72 Wash. 679, 131 Pac. 
252. Wis.— Briere v. Taylor, 126 Wis. 
347, 105 N. W. 817; Hart v. Hart, 117 
Wis. 639, 94 N. W. 890; Bitter v. Bit- 
ter, 100 Wis. 468, 76 N. W. 347; 
Knapp V. Edwards, 57 Wis. 191, 15 N. 
W. 140. Eng.— Newton v. Taylor, L. 
B. 19 Eq. 14, 33 Wkly. Eep. 330. Can. 

Vol ZXE 



48 



PABTNEB8HIP 



where discussed, as to jurisdiction and venue.'^ Ordinarily an ac- 
tion against a partnership is maintainable in any county where one 
of the partners resides,** but where for purposes of suit a partner- 
ship is a legal entity, it would seem that it should be governed by the 
principles applied to other similar entities,*^ and the action, in such 
case, may be brought in any county wherein the partnership is doing 

T)11S1I16SS '^ 

B. Attachment.8' — 1. Of Firm Property. — a. For What 
CZaims. — Partnership property may be attached for firm debts ;^* 
and, for the individual debt of a partner, his interest*^ in the firm 



Hall V. Antrobus, 44 Nova Scotia 96; 
O'Lone v. O'Lone, 2 Qrant Ch. 125. 

83. See generally the titles "JuTis- 
diction;" "Venue;" and numerous 
other titles dealing with particular 
classes of actions. 

In acbionis between pturtniexS) see 
supra I. 

84. Pyron v. Ruohs, 120 Ga. 1060, 
48 S. E. 434; Wadley, Jones & Co. 
V. Jones, 55 Ga. 329; Sloan v. Cooper, 
54 Ga. 486; King Bros. & Co. v. Pass- 
more, 18 Ga. App. 514, 89 S. E. 1103. 

[a] A coun^ where none of the 
partners reside is not a proper venue 
in such actions, even though the part- 
nership maintained a branch office 
therein in charge of an agent who is 
a resident of such county. King Bros. 
& Co. V. Passmore, 18 Ga. App. 514, 89 
S. E. 1103. 

[b] At Domicil. — After a dissolu- 
tion of the partnership, the parties 
may be sued at the domicil of the 
partnership. Weil/ Bros. v. Adams, 126 
La. 532, 52 So. 757. 

85. See Fitzgerald v. Grimmell, 64 
Iowa 261, 20 N. W. 179; 18 Standabd 
Pboc. 996; 5 Standard Proc. 585, et 
seq. 

86. lU.— "Watson v. Coon, 247 111. 

414, 93 N. E. 289. la Euthven v. 

Beckwith, 84 Iowa 715, 45 N. W. 1073, 

51 N. W. 153; Sketchley v. Smith, 78 
Iowa 542, 43 N. W. 524; Fitzgerald 
V. Grimmell, 64 Iowa 261, 20 N. W. 
179. La.— Weil Bros. v. Adams, 126 
Lak 532, 52 So. 757; Wolf v. New 
Orleans Tailor-Made Pants Co., 52 La. 
Ann. 1957, 27 So. 893 ; Marsh v. Marsh, 
9 Eob. 45; Hobson & Co. v. Whitte- 
more, 13 La. 422. 

[a] But if transacting business in 
several counties the action should be 
brought in the county where the obli- 
gation is entered into. Weil Bros. v. 
Adams, 126 La. 532, 52 So. 757; Wolf 
V. New Orleans Tailor-Made Pants Co., 

52 La. Ann. 1357, 27 So. 893. 

Vol. xxr 



87. See generally the title "At- 
tachment. ' ' 

88. Hich. — Smith v. Eunnells, 94 
Mich. 617, 54 N. W. 375. N. H.— Hall 
V. Eichardson, 66 N. H. 205, 20 Atl. 
978. N. M. — iCurran v. Kendall Boot 
& Shoe Co., 8 N. M. 417, 45 Pae. 1120. 
N. Y. — Woodward v. Stearns, 10 Abb. 
Pr. (N. S.) 395. 

89. Conn. — Hannon v. O'Dell, 71 
Conn. 698, 43 Atl. 147; Stevens v. 
Stevens, 39 Conn. 474. HL— Newhall 
V. Buckingham, 14 111. 405. Ind. 
Burgess v. Atkins, 5 Blackf. 337. Kan. 
Williams v. Muthersbaugh, 29 Kan. 
730; Hershfield v. Claflin & Co., 25 
Kan. 166, 37 Am. Eep. 237. La. 
Marston & Co. v. Dewberry, 21 I»a. 
Ann. 518; Fraser & Co. v. Thorpe, 9 
La. Ann. 518. Me. — Parker v. Wright, 
66 Me. 392; Hacker v. Johnson, 66 
Me. 21; Thompson v. Lewis, 34 Me. 
167; Douglas v. Winslow, 20 Me. 89. 
Mass. — Breck v. Blair, 129 Mass. 127; 
Allen V. Wells, 22 Pick. 450, 33 Am. 
Dec. 757. Minn. — AUis v. Day, 13 
Minn. 199; Day v. McQuillan, 13 Minn. 
205. Mo.— Hill V. Bell, 111 Mo. 35, 
19 S. W. 959; Fleisher v. Hinde (Mo. 
App.), 93 S. W. 1126. N. J.— Curtis 
V. Hollingshead, 14 N. J. Li 402. 
N. Y.— Staats v. Bristow, 73 N. Y. 
264; Hergman v. Dettlebach, 11 How. 
Pr. 46. Ohio. — Stewart & Co. v. Hun- 
ter, 1 Handy 22, 12 Ohio Dec. (Ee- 
print) 6. Ore. — Cogswell v. Wilson, 
17 Ore. 31, 21 Pae. 388. E. I.— Traf- 
ford V. Hubbard, 15 E. I. 326, 4 Atl. 
762, 8 Atl. 690; Eandall v. Johnson, 
13 E. I. 338; Eemington v. Howard 
Express Co., 8 E. I. 406. S. 0. — Schat- 
zill & Co. V. Bolton, 2 McCord 478, 
13 Am. Dec. 748. Tenn. — Morraw v. 
Fossick, 3 Lea 129; Saunders v. Bart' 
lett, 12 Heisk. 316. Utah.— Snell v. 
Crowe, 3 Utah 26, 5 Pae. 522. Va. 
Shaver v. White, 6 Munf. (20 Va.) 
110, 8 Am. Dec. 730. W. Va.— Andrews 



PABTNEBSHIP 



49 



property may in some states, but not in alP" be attached. 

b. Grounds for Attachment. — To authorize the attachment of 
partnership property some one or more of the statutory grounds there- 
for must appear,^^ as that the partners have transferred the partner- 
ship propei-ty in fraud of creditors,^^ or that the debtors have abscond- 
ed or concealed themselves,®' or are non-residents.** But where the 
ground of attachment is non-residence, unless the liability is joint 
and several,®^ an attachment will not lie where one or more of the 
partners continue to reside in the state.'* 



V. Mundy, 36 W. Va. 22, 14 S. B. 
414. 

[a] The partner's interest in a spe- 
cific portion of a stock of goods be- 
longing to his firm may be taken on 
attachment. Fogg v. Lawry, 68 Me. 
78, 28 Am. Eep. 19. But see Sanborn 
V. Royce, 132 Mass. 594, holding such 
a levy a trespass. 

90. TJ. S. — McCoombe v. Duneh, 2 
Dall. 73, 1 L. ed. 294. N. H.— Hill 
V. Wiggin, 31 N. H. 292; HufEum v. 
Seaver, 16 N. H. 160. But see Dow 
V. Sayward, 14 N. H. 9, holding that 
an attachment will lie but that the 
goods cannot be taken out of the pos- 
session of the partnership. N. C. 
Jarvis v. Hyer, 15 N. C. 367. Pa. 
Home V. Petty, 192 Pa. 32, 43 Atl. 
404; Ryon v. Wynkoop, 148 Pa. 188, 
23 Atl. 1002; Alter v. Brooke, 9 Phila. 
258. 

See Brande"«. Bond, 63 Wis. 140, 23 
N. W. 101, wherein the court quae'ried 
whether an attachment would lie in 
such case. 

91. Ga.— Starr v. Mayer & Co., 60 
Ga. 546. m. — Lawrence v. Steadman, 
49 111. 270; Hinman v. Andrews Opera 
Co., 49 111. App. 135. Kan.— Williams 
V. Muthersbaugh, 29 Kan. 730. Mich. 
Van Benschoten v. Fales, 126 Mich. 
176, 85 N. W. 476; JafEray v. Jen- 
nings, 101 Mich. 515, 60 N. W. 52, 
25 L. E. A. 645. Mo.— Tennent, Walk- 
er & Co. v. Guenther. 31 Mo. App. 429, 
a sale by one partner of his interest 
in the firm not a ground for issuing 
an attachment where no fraud shown. 
N. Y.—In re Matter of Smith, 16 
Johns. 102; Monette v. Chardon, 16 
Misc. 165, 37 N. "S. Supp. 2, 72 N. Y. 
St. 135; Edick v. Green, 38 Hun 202; 
Bogart V. Dart, 25 Hun 395. Okla. 
Johnson v. Jones, 39 Okla. 323, 135 
Pac. 12, 48 L. R. A. (N. S.) 547. 
Vt.— Leach v. Cook, 10 Vt. 239. W. Va. 
Goodman v. Henry, 42 W. Va. 526, 26 
8. B. 528, 35 L. E. A. 847; Baer v. 
Wilkinson, 35 W. Va. 422, 14 S. E. 1. 



Wis. — Evans v. Virgin, 69 Wis. 153, 33 
N. W. 569. 
See generally 3 Standard Peoc. 349. 

92. ni.— Keith v. Pint, 47 111. 272; 
Reynolds v. Radke, 112 111. App. 575. 
Md.— Collier v. Hauna, 71 Md. 253, 17 
Atl. 1017. Mich. — Van Benschoten v. 
Pales, 126 Mich. 176. 85 N. W. 476. 
Minn. — Rosenberg v. Burnstein, 60 
Minn. 18, 61 N. W. 684. Mo.— Wilson- 
Obear Groe. Co. v. Cole, 26 MoT IVpp. 
5. N. Y.— Globe Woolen Co. v. Car- 
hart, 67 How. Pr. 403; Hirsch v. 
Hutchison, 64 How. Pr. 366, 3 Civ. 
Proc. 106; Heye v. Belles, 2 Daly 231, 
33 How. Pr. 266: Friend v. Michaelis, 
15 Abb. N. C. 354; Rogers v. Ingersoll, 
103 App. Div. 490, ?_3 N. T. Supp. 
140. Ohio.— Sellew v. Chrisfield, 1 
Handy 86, 12 Ohio Dec. 41. Tenn. 
Johnson v. Rankin, 59 S. W. 638. Wis. 
Winner v. Kuehn, 97 Wis. 394, 72 N. 
W. 227; Keith v. Armstrong, 65 Wis. 
225, 26 N. W. 445. 

[a] Transfer by managing partner 
sufficient. Winner v. Kuehn, 97 Wis. 
394, 72 N. W. 227. 

93. III. — Bryant v. Simoneau, 51 
111. 324. Ohio.— Sellew v. Chrisfield, 1 
Handy 86, 12 Ohio Dec. 41. Vt. 
Leach v. Cook, 10 Vt. 239. 

94. Woodward v. Stearns, 10 Abb. 
Pr. (N. S.) 395. 

95. Conklin v. Harris, 5 Ala. 213; 
Wilcox, Dickerman & Co. v. Carey, 9 
Dana 297. 

96. Ga.— Wiley & Co. v. Sledge, 8 
Ga. 532. La.— Weil Bros. v. Adams, 
126 La. 532, 52 So. 757; Thomas & 
Co. V. Lusk & Co., 13 La. Ann. 277; 
Shirley, Escott & Co. v. Steamer Bride, 
5 La. Ann. 260; Munroe v. Frosh, 2 
La. Ann. 962. Md. — Johnston v. 
Mathews, 32 Md. 363. Miss.— Barney 
V. Moore-Haggerty Lumb. Co., 95 Miss. 
118, 48 So. 232. N. J.— Hollingshead 
V. Curtis, 14 N. J. L. 402. N. Y. 
Sears v. Gearn, 7 How. Pr. 383. Ohio. 
Taylor v. McDonald, 4 Ohio 149; 

Vol. XXI 



50 



PABTNEBSHIP 



2. Of Individual Property for Partnership Debt. — In jurisdic- 
tions allowing an action to be brought against one or more partners 
upon a firm obligation, an attachment in aid of the action may be 
levied on the individual property of such partner or partners.®' But 
an attachment will not lie against the individual property of an in- 
nocent co-partner for a firm debt fraudulently contracted by the other 
member of the firm.°^ 

3. Affidavit. — To procure an attachment against a partnership 
or its members, an affidavit as required by statute must be made*' 
setting forth the name of the firm,^ or the names of the persons com- 
posing it,^ the claim or indebtedness,^ and some one or more of the 
statutory grounds for the writ.* 

4. Bond. — 'A bond complying with the conditions of the statute 
must be furnished by the attaching party .° 

5. Writ of Attachment. — a. Form and Contents. — In those 
jurisdictions requiring that the names of the partners be set out in full 
in the pleadings," a writ of attachment is fatally defective if it does 
not set out their names,' but where the statute renders it unneees- 



Cowdin V. Hurford, 4 Ohio 132. Okla. 
JohnBon v. Jones, 39 Okla. 323, 133 
Pae. 12, 48 L. R. A. (N. S.) 547. Pa. 
White's Case, 10 Watts 217; Hauson 
V. Watson, 12 Wkly. N. C. 368. R. I. 
Eemington v. Howard Express Co., 8 
E. I. 406. S. 0.— Whitfield v. Hovey, 
30 S. C. 117, 8 S. E. 840; Robinson 
V. Crowder, 1 Bailey 185. Teun. — Wal- 
lace V. Galloway, 5 Coldw. 510. W. Va. 
Goodman -v. Henry, 42 W. Va. 526, 26 
S. E. 528, 35 L. R. A. 847. 

97. Fla. — First Nat. Bank v. Greig, 
43 Fla. 412, 31 So. 239. Ga — Connon 
V. I>unlap, 64 Ga. 680; Starr v. Mayer 
& Co., 60 Ga. 546. 111. — ^Lawrence v. 
Steadman, 49 111. 270; Inderriedeni Co. 
47. Frost, 155 111. App. 575; Hinman v. 
Andrews Opera Co., 49 111. App. 135. 
Ean. — Williams v. Muthersbaugh, 29 
Kan. 730. Md. — Johnston v. Mathews, 
32 Md. 363. Mass.— Stevens v. Perry, 
113 Mass. 380; Allen v. Wells, 22 Pick. 
450, 33 Ate. Dec. 757. Mich.— Jaffray 
V. Jennings, 101 Mich. 515, 60 N. W. 
52, 25 L. R. A. 645; People v. Circuit 
Judge, 41 Mich. 326, 2 N. W. 26; Ed- 
wards V. Hughes, 20' Mich. 289. Minn. 
Daly V. Bradbury, 46 Minn. 396, 49 
N. W. 190. N. J.— Curtis v. HoUings- 
head, 14 N. J. L. 402. N. Y.—In r,; 
Matter of Smith, 16 Johns. 102; In re 
Chipman, 14 Johns. 217; Monette v. 
Chardon, 16 Misc. 165,'37 N. Y. Supp. 
2; Bogart v. Dart, 25 Hun 395. N. C. 
Jarvis v. Hyer, 15 N. C. 367. Pa. 
White's Case, 10 Watts 217. W. Va. 
Andrews v. Mundy, 36 W. Va. 22, 14 

Vol. XXI 



S. E. 414; Baer v. Wilkinson, 35 W. 
Va. 422, 14 S. E. 1. 

But see Johnson v. Jones, 39 Okla. 
323, 135 Pae. 12, 48 L. E. A. (N. S.) 
547. ^ V ; 

98. Ark.— Worthley v. Goodbar, 53 
Ark. 1, 13 S. W: 216. Kan.— WUliams 
V. Muthersbaugh, 29 Kau. 730. Mich. 
Jaffray v. Jennings, 101 Mich. 515, 60 
N. W. 52, 25 L. E. A. 645: Edwards 
V. Hughes, 20 Mich. 289. N. Y.— Mo- 
nette V. Chardon, 16 Misc. 165, 37 N. 
Y. Supp. 2, 72 N. Y. St. 135. 

99. Johnston & Co. v. Smith, 83 Ga. 
779, 10 S. E. 354. See generally 3 
Standard Proc. 396. 

1. Sims; Harrison & Co. v, Jacob- 
son & Co., 51 Ala. 186. 

2. Johnston & Co. v. Smith, 83 Ga. 
779, 10 S. E. 354. 

^o?' W^^^ '"■ Kimfcall & Co., 47 Ga. 
587. See supra, II, B, 1. 

4. Guckenheimer v. Day, 74 Ga 1- 

^A°J^^^^J- ^'"■^"' 50 N. J. L. 363,' 1.3 

Ati. 178. See 3 Standard Proc. 428. 

Grounds for writ, see supra, H, B, 

1, D. 

5. Ga.— Birdsong v. McLaren, 8 Ga. 
521., la. — Courrier v. Cleghorn, 3 G 
Gr. 523. Tex.— De Caussey «. Baily. 
57 Tex. 665. ^' 

See generally 3 Standard Proc. 
443. 

e. See infra, II, G, 1, b, (H). 

7. Hirsh V. Thurber & Co., 54 Md. 
210, reference cannot be had to the 
affidavit of attachment or any plead- 
ing to cure the defect in the writ 



PABTNEBSEIP 



51 



sary to set forth the names of the partners,' the failure to allege the 
individual names of the members of the partnership will not render 
the attachment invalid.* The statutory grounds for issuing the writ 
must sometimes be averred.^" 

b. Levy. — The officer must make levy of the writ^* upon the prop- 
erty attachable thereunder,^^ and take the goods thus levied upon 
into his custody.^* 

c. Quashal or Vacation of Writ,, — In a proper case the writ of 
attachment may be vacated or quashed.^* Thus it is ground for 
quashal of a writ against a partnership that the issuance of such writ 
was not warranted as to one or more of the partners.^* 

C. Gaenishment. — In another portion of this work the question 
of how far creditors- may by garnishment reach partnership funds or 
the property of an individual partner is fully discussed,^^ as is also the 
matter of parties to such proceeding/' and to some extent that of 



8. See infra, II, G, 1, b, (II). 

9. Ala. — ^McCaskey v. Pollock, 82 
Ala. 174, 2 So. 674. Ohio. — Byers v. 
Schlupe, 51 Ohio St. 300, 38 N. E. 
117, 25 L. E. A. 649. Tenn.— Blue 
Grass Can. Co. v. Wardman, 103 Tenn. 
179, 52 S. W. 137. 

[a] A misnomer of a partner is im- 
material where the firm name is cor- 
rectly stated. Eu'shton v. Eowe, 64 
Pa. 63. 

[b] Waiver of misnomer by ap- 
pearance. Blue Grass Can. Co. v. 
Wardman, 103 Tenn. 179, 52 S. W. 137. 

10. Eoach V. Brannon, 57 Miss. 
490. 

11. See generally 3 Standard Pkoc. 
488. 

12. Cogswell V. Wilson, 19 Ore. 31, 
21 Pae. 388. See also cases under 
note immediately following. And see 
supra, U, B, 1 and 2. 

[a] That the partnership property 
and the individual property of the 
partners against whom the attachment 
was issued may be levied on under an 
attachment against some of the part- 
ners, see Eogers v. Ingersoll, 103 App. 
Div. 490, .93 N. T. Supp. 140. 

[b] ' 'An attachment against a part- 
nership by its firm name, without 
mention of the individual • partners, 
can only be levied on 'partnership 
property; it cannot be levied on the 
individual property of the partners." 
Haas V. Cook, 148 Ala. 670, 41 So. 
731. 

13. Hannon ». O'Dell, 71 Conn. 698, 
43 Atl. 147; Phillips v. Bridge, 11 
Ma^s. 242. 

Ta] Where a partner's interest In 
the firm is attached (1) for his indi- 



vidual debt, the officer may in some 
states take into his possession all the 
firm property. Conn. — Stevens v. Stev- 
ens, 39 Conn. 474. 111. — Newhall v. 
Buckingham, 14 111. 405. Kan. — Hersh- 
field V. Claflin & Co., 25 Kan. 166, 37 
Am. Eep. 237. La. — Lee v. BuUard, 
3 La. Ann. 462. Me. — Hacker v. John- 
son, 66 Me. 21; Douglas v. Winslow, 
20 Me. 89. N. Y.— Atkins v. Saxton, 
77 N. Y. 195; Hergman v. Dettlebach, 
11 How. Pr. 46. Ohio.— Stewart & Co. 
V. Hunter, 1 Handy ,22, 12 Ohio Dec. 
(Eeprint) 6. Ore. — Cogswell v. Wil- 
son, 17 Ore. 31, 21 Pac. 388. R. I. 
Trafford v. Hubbard, 15 E. I. 326, 4 
Atl. 762, 8 Atl. 690. Tenn.— Saunders 
V. Bartlett, 12 Heisk. 316. Utah. 
Snell V. Crowe, 3 Utah 26, 5 Pac. 522. 
Vt. — Eeed v. Shepardson, 2 Vt. 120, 
19 Am. Dec. 697. Va. — Shaver v. 
White, 6 Munf. (20 Va.) 110, 8 Am. 
Dee. 730. (2) But in some jurisdic- 
tions the officer cannot in such case 
take possession of the firm property to 
the exclusion of the partners. Conn. 
Hannon v. O'Dell, 71 Conn., 698, 43 
Atl. 147. Ind. Ter. — Carlisle v. Mc- 
Alester, 3 Ind. Ter. 164, 53 S. W. 531. 
Mass. — Sandborn v. Eoyce, 132 Mass. 
594; Crawford v. Capen, 132 Mass. 596. 

14. See generally 3 Standard Peoc. 
747. 

15. Leach v. Cook, 10 Vt. 239; 
Evans v. Virgin, 69 Wis. 1 53, 33 N. W. 
569. 

[a] Aa to partner filing plea, abate- 
ment granted. Hill v. Bell, 111 Mo. 
35, 19 S. W. 959. 

le. 10 Standard Proc. 413. 

17. As to who must be made par- 
ties where a partnership is charged as 

Vol. XXI 



52 



PABTNEBSHIP 



process.^' Where the debtor of a firm is garnished for the individual 
debt of a partner, the other members of the firm must be given no- 
tice 'of such faet.^® 

D. Parties. — ^1. Generally. — At common law a partnership is 
not recognized as a legal entity,^" and in jurisdictions where this rule 
still prevails, suits by and against partnerships must be conducted 
in the names of the individual members of the firm.^^ 



garHishee, see 10 Standard Pkoc. 486; 
where the partnership is the debtor, 
see 10 Standard Proc. 487. 

Efiect upon the proceedings of 
chajige in the partueirsMp bjr death or 
otherwise, see 10 Standard Proc. 487. 

18. As to manner of maJiiug service 
upon partnership as garnishee, see 10 
Standard Peoc. 496. 

19. Henderson v. Cashman, 85 Me. 
437, 27 Atl. 344. 

As to service of notice upon prin- 
cipal defendant, of tlie garnishment 
proceedings, see 10 Standard Proc. 
498. 

20. U. S. — Bruett & Co. v. Austin 
Drainage Excavator Co., 174 Fed. 668. 
Ala. — Illinois Central E. Co. v. Kil- 
gore & Son, 12 Ala. App. 358, 67 So. 
707. Del. — Barber v. Clendaniel, 102 
Atl. 84. la. — Markham v. Bucking- 
ham, 21 Iowa 494, 89 Am. Dec. 590. 
Mass. — Hughes v. Gross, 166 Mass. 61, 
43 N. E. 1031, 55 Am. St. Eep. 375, 
32 L. R. A. 620. Mo.— Weldon v. 
Fisher, 194 Mo. App. 573, 186 S. W. 
1153. Neb. — MeJunkin v. Placek, 80 
Neb. 373, 114 N. W. 411. Ohio.— Smith 
V. Hoover; 39 Ohio St. 249, 256. Tex. 
Glasscock v. Price, 92 Tex. 271, 47 S. 
W. 965; Commonwealth Bond & Cas. 
Ins. Co. V. Meeks (Tex. Civ. App.), 
187 S. "W. 681. W. Va.— Wilson v. 
Carter Oil Co., 46 W. Va. 469, 33 S. E. 
249; Courson v. Parker, 39 W. Va. 
521, 20 S. E. 583. 

21. U. S. — Bruett & Co. v. Austin 
Drainage Excavator Co., 174 Fed. 668; 
Fruit-Cleaning Co. v. Fresno Home 
Packing Co., 94 Fed. 845 (equity 
rule); Adams v. May, 27 Fed. 907. 
Colo. — Simonton v. Eohm, 14 Colo. 51, 
23 Pac. 86. Del. — Roberts v. Rowan 
& Co., 2 Harr. 314. Fla. — Richardson 
V. Smith & Co., 21 Fla. 336. m. 
Gore V. Muhlenburg, 135 111. App. 525; 
Ives V. Muhlenburg, 135 111. App. 517. 
Ind. — Pollock V. Dunning, 54 Ind. 115; 
Livingston v. Harvey, 10 Ind. 218. 
Ky. — Heavrin v. Lack Malleable Iron 
Co., 153 Ky. 329, 155 S. W. 729; Fox 
V. Blue-Grass Grocery Co., 22 Ky. L. 

Vol. XXI 



Rep. 169, 61 S. W., 265. Md.— Arm- 
strong V. Robinson, 5 Gill & J. 412. 
Mich. — Barber v. Smith, 41 Mich. 138, 
1 N. W. 992 (common law rule applies 
to suits in circuit court, but not in 
justice's court); Smith v. Canfield, 8 
Mich. 493. Miss. — ^Lewis v. Cline, 5 
So. 112; Blackwell v. Beid & Co., 41 
Miss. 102. Mo. — Iroquois Mfg. Co. v. 
Annan-Burg Milling Co., 179 Mo. App. 
87, 161 S. W. 320; Johnson Mach. Co. 
V. Watson, 57 Mo. App. 629. Mont. 
Wilson V. Yegen Bros., 38 Mont. 504, 
100 Pac. 613; Boyd v. Platner, 5 Mont. 
226, 2 Pac. 346. N. J.— Faulkner ». 
Whitaker, 15 N. J. L. 438; Tomlinson 
V. Burke, 10 N. J. L. 295. N. Y. 
Liebert v. Reiss, 174 App. Div. 308, 
160 N. Y. Supp. 535; Union Wine Co. 
V. Green, 62 Misc. 551, 115 N. Y. Supp. 
921. Okla.— Cox v. Gille Hdw. & Iron 
Co., 8 Okla. 483, 58 Pac. 645. Ore. 
Dunham v. Shindler, 17 Ore. 256, 20 
Pac. 326; Kamm v. Harker, 3 Ore. 208. 
Pa. — Tonge v. Item Pub. Co., 244 Pa. 
417, 91 Atl. 229; Cover v. Brown, 
Sutter & Co., 7 Pa. Dist. 19. S. C. 
Smith V. Walker, 6 8. C. 169; Martin 
V. Kelly, Cheves L. 215. Tex.— Glass- 
cock V. Price, 92 Tex. 271, 47 S W 
965; Frank v. Tatum, 87 Tex. 204. 25 
S- W. 409. Va.— Pate v. Bacon & Co., 
6 Munf. (20 Va.) 219; Scott & Co. 
V. Dunlop, Pollok & Co., 2 Munf. (16 
Va.) 349. Wash.— Olson v. Veazie, 9 
Wash. 481, 37 Pac. 677, 43 Am. St 
Rep. 855. W. Va.— Courson v. Parker. 
39 W. Va. 521, 20 S. E. 583. 

In what name judgment rendered, 
see infra, II, J, 3, b. 

[a] Names of partners set out In 
caption is sufficient. Fruit-Cleaning 
Co. V. Fresno Home-Packing Co., 94 
Fed. 845; Orr v. How, 55 Mo.. 328. 

[b] Where the partners are numer- 
ous, one or more may represent the 
others. Lloyd v. Loaring, 6 Ves Jr 
7i' 31 Eng. Reprint 1302; Small v. 
Attwood, 1 Young 407, 2 L. J. Ex. Bq. 
1, 6, quoted in Piatt v. Colvin, 50 Ohio 
St. 703 36 N. E. 735. See generally 
the title "Parties." '^ 



PABTNERSmP 



53 



Where a partner refuses to Join as plaintiff, he may pursuant to the 
general rule^^ be made defendant,^' or his co-partners may use his 
name as a plaintiff upon indemnifying him against loss, if so de- 
manded.^* 

Where Partnership a Iiegal Entity. — By virtue of statute a partner- 
ship is regarded in some states, at least for the purposes of suit, as 
a legal entity and may be sued,^" and in some jurisdictions both sue 
and be sued^* in its firm name. The right is sometimes limited to 



[e] An individual doing husinese 
in name and style of a firm (1) should 
be declared against by his proper 
Christian and surname (Schroeder v. 
Turner, 68 Md. 506, 13 Atl. 331), (2) al- 
though some courts permit a suit to be 
brought by or against him in the busi- 
ness name assumed. Birmingham Loan 
& Auction Co. v. First Nat. Bank, 100 
Ala. 249, 13 So. 945, 46 Am. St. Rep. 45; 
Eobinovitz v. Hamill, 44 Okla. 437, 144 
Pac. 1024, L. R. A. 1915I>, 981; Nation- 
al Surety Co. v. Oklahoma Presby. 
CoUege, 38 Okla. 429, 432 Pac. 652; 
Roberts v. Hosier, 35 Okla. 691, 132 
Pac. 678, Ann. Gas. 1914D, 423. 

22. See generally the title "Par- 
ties," and 11 Standard Peoc. 971. 

23. Ala. — ^Allen v. White, Minor 
365. Ark. — ^Ingham Lumber Co. v. 
Ingersoll & Co., 93 Ark. 447, 125 S. W. 
139. Cal. — ^Nightingale v. Scannell, 6 
Cal. 506, 65 Am. Dec. 525. Ind.— Hill 
V. Marsh, 46 Ind. -218. Mo. — Sanders 
V. Clifford, 72 Mo. App. 548. N. Y. 
Schnaier v. Schmidt, 59 Hun 626, 13 
N. Y. Supp. 728, 37 N. Y. St. 641; 
Marx V. Valley Stone Co., 84 Misc. 
514, 147 N. Y. Supp. 519; Freeman v. 
Abramson, 30 Misc. 101, 61 N. Y. Supp. 
839. Tex.— Barker v. Abbott, 2 T«x. 
Civ. App. 147, 21 S. W. 72; Hines v. 
Dean, 1 White & W. Civ. Cas., S690. 
Wis.— Noonan v. Orton, 31 Wis. 265. 

24. Ingham Lumber Co. v. Inger- 
soll & Co., 93 Ark. 447, 125 S. W. 
339; Skeer v. Lehigh Valley Nat. Bank, 
41 Pa. Co. Ct. 42. 

25. Ala. — Conn v. Sellers, 73 So. 
961; Wahouma Drug Co. v. Clay, 193 
Ala. 79, 69 So. .82; Ratchford v. Cov- 
ington County S'toek Co. 172 Ala. 461, 
55 So. 806. Cfal. — Holden v. Men- 
singer, 165 Pae. 950; 'Booth v. Gamble- 
Bobinson Commission Co., 139 Cal. 175, 
72 Pac. 908. See King v. Randlett, 
33 Cal. 318. Colo. — ^Barnes v. Colorado 
Springs & C. C. D. By. Co., 42 Colo. 
461, 94 Pae. 570; Ellsberry v. Block, 
28 Colo. 477, 65 Pac. 629; Peabody v. 
OleiBon, 15 Colo. App. 346, 62 Pac. 



234. Mich.— Stever v. Brown, 119 
Mich. 196, 77 N. W. 704, where names 
of members composing firm are un- 
known. Minn. — Dimond v. Minnesota 
Sav. Bank, 70 Minn. 298, 73 N. W. 
182. Mont. — Doll V. Hennessy Mer- 
cantile Co., 33 Mont. 80, 81 Pac. 625. 
Nev. — Martin v. District Court, 13 
Nev. 85. Utah. — ^Hamner v. Ballan- 
tyne, 16 Utah 436, 52 Pac. 770, 67. 
Am. St. Rep. 643. 

[a] Such statute has nO' application 
to suits in equity. Levysteiu v. Ger- 
son, Seligman & Co., 147 Ala. 251, 41 
So. 774; Opelika v. Daniel, 59 Ala. 
211. 

[b] If the caption of the complaint 
contains the names of the members 
of th« firm, it is a sufScient compli- 
ance with the statute. Foreman v. 
Weil, 98 Ala. 495, 12 So. 815. 

[c] Such statute is permissive and 
does not prevent a suit being brought 
in the names of the individual part- 
ners. Cassells' Mill v. Strater Bros. 
Grain Co., 166 Ala. 274, 51 So. 969. 

[d] The addition of the Ann name 
to those of the partners is merely de- 
scriptive of the persons, or of the 
subject matter of the suit, and does 
not make it a suit by the firm. Long 
V. Kansas City, M. & B. R. Co., 170 
Ala. 635, 54 So. 62; Johnston, Nesbitt 
& Co. V. First Nat. Bank, 145 Ala. 
378, 40 So. 78; McKissack v. Witz, 
120 Ala. 412, 25 So. 21. 

26. XT. S.— Empire Rice Mill Co. v. 
Neumond, 199 Fed. 800 (Louisiana); 
Bruett & Co. v. Austin Drainage Ex- 
cavator Co., 174 Fed. 668 (Iowa); 
Balya Market Co. v. Armour & Co., 
102 Fed. 530, Iowa. Ga.— McDonough 
V. Carter, 98 Ga. 703, 25 S. E. 938; 
Central R. Co. v. Pickett, 87 Ga. 734, 
13 S. E. 750. m.— Watson v. Coon, 
247 111. 414, 93 N. E. 289; United 
States Exp. Co. v. Bedbury, 34 HI. 
459. Ind. — Adams Express Co. v. State, 
161 Ind. 328, 67 N. E. 1033, express 
companies who have recorded state- 
ment of individuals composing the 

Vol ttt 



54 



PABTNEBSBIP 



partnerships formed for the purpose of carrying on a trade or busi- 
ness in the state,^' or that hold, property therein.^® 

Certificate as to Fictitious Name — The statutes in many jurisdictions 
require a partnership conducting business under a fictitious name to 
file a certificate giving the names of the partners, as a condition prece- 
dent to the maintenance of a suit upon a partnership demand.^*^ 



firm. la. — Van Dyk v. Mosterdt, 171 
Iowa 3, 153 N. W. 2(76; Hallowell v. 
Mcliaughlin Bros., 121 N. W. 1039; 
Eyerson v. Hendrie, 22 Iowa 480. Kan. 
Neiswanger v. Ord, 81 Kan. 63, 105 
Pac. 17, 29 L. E. A. (N. S.) 287. 

La Wolf V. New Orleans Tailor-Made 

Pants Co., 52 La. Ann.- 1357, 27 So. 
89'3. Ifflch. — Stirling v. Heintzman, 
42 Mich. 449, 4 N. W. 165; Barber v. 
Smith, 41 Mich. 138, 1 N. W. 992 (rule 
in justice's court); Hubbardston 
Lumb. Co. V. Covert, 35 Mich. 254, jus- 
tice's eourtk Neb.i — Heenan v. Par- 
mele, 118 F. W. 324; Stelling v. Ped- 
dieord, 78 Neb. 779, 111 N. W. 793; 
Chamberlain Banking House v. Noyes, 
Norman & Co., 3 Neb. (Unof.) 550, 92 
N. W. 175; Wigton v. Smith, 57 Neb. 
299, 77 N. W. 772. N. C— Eoller v. 
McKinney, 159 N. C. 319, 74 S. E. 966; 
fleaton v. Wfison, 123 N. C. 398, 31 
S. E. 671. dhio.— Whitman v. Keith, 
18 Ohio St. 134. Vt.— Patch Mfg. Co. 
V. Capeless, 79 Vt. 1, 63 Atl. 938. 
Wyo. — Noble v. Hudson, 20 Wyo. 227, 
122 Pac. 901. 

[a] Statute is peimissive merely 
and does not abrogate the common 
law rule. Colq. — Peabody v. Oleson, 15 
Colo. App. 346, 62 Pac. 234. la. — Me- 
Closkey v. Strickland, 7 Iowa 259. 
Ohio. — Whitman v. Keith, 18 Ohio St. 
134. 

[b] That security for the costs 
must be given where partnership siies 
in its firm name, see Peaks v. Graves, 
25 Neb. 235, 41 N. W. 151; Burling- 
ton & M. E. E. Co. V. Dick, 7 Neb. 
242. 

[c] Although a contract is made by 
them as individuals, if they subse- 
quently file a certificate of a fictitious 
partnership they may sue on the con- 
tract as a partnership. Church v. 
Wilkeson-Tripp Co., 58 Wash. 262, 108 
Pac. 596, 109 Pac. 113. 

27. V. S.— Irvine v. Church, 227 
Fed. 252, Ohio. Neb.— McJunkin v. 
Placek, 80 Neb. 373, 114 N. W. 411; 
Union Pae. Ey. Co. v. Metcalf, 50 Neb. 
452, 69 N. W. 961; Church v. Callahan, 
49 Neb. 542, 68 N. W. 932. Ohio. 

Vol. XXI 



Byers v. Schlupe, 51 Ohio St. 300, 38 
N. E. 117, 25 L. E. A. 649; Smith v. 
Hoover, 39 Ohio St. 249; Haskins v. 
Alcott, 13 Ohio St. 210; Abernathy 
V. Latimore, 19 Ohio 286. Wyo. 
Noble V. Hudson, 20 Wyo. 227, 122 
Pac. 901; O'Brien v. Foglesong, 3 
Wyo. 57^ 31 Pac. 1047. 

[a] Statutes Must Be Strictly Con- 
strued and Followed. — Meyer v. Omaha 
F. & C. Co., 76 Neb. 405, 107 N. W. 
767; Church v. Callahan, 49 Neb. 542, 
68 N. W. 932; Burlington & Missouri 
Eiver E. Co. v. Dick, 7 Neb. 242. 

[b] An association formed for an 
illegal purpo^ is not a partnership 
within the meaning of a statute al- 
lowing it to be sued in its assumed 
name. Jackson v. Akron Brick Assn., 
53 Ohio St. 303, 41 N. E. 257, 53 Am. 
St. Bep. 638, 35 L. E. A. 287. 

28. U. S.— Irvine v. Church, 227 
Fed. 252, Ohio. Neb.— McJunkin v. 
Placek, 80 Neb. 373, 114 N. W. 411; 
Union Pae. Ey. Co. v. Metcalf, 50 Neb. 
452, 69 N. W. 961; Church v. Callahan, 
49 Neb. 542, 68 N. W. 932; Herrou 
V. Cole Bros., 25 Neb. 692, 41 N. W. 
765. Ohio. — Byers v. Schlupe, 51 Ohio 
St. 300, 38 N. E. 117, 25 L. E. A. 
649; Smith v. Hoover, 39 Ohio St. 249. 
Wyo. — Noble v. Hudson, 20 Wyo. 227, 
122 Pac. 901; O'Brien v. Foglesone, 3 
Wyo. 57, 31 Pac. 1047. 

[a] If the partnership holds prop- 
erty in the state, it may be sued in 
its firm name, although not formed for 
such purpose. Irvine v. Church, 227 
Fed. 252. 

281/2. Ariz.— McPadden v. Stanley, 
16 Ariz. 91, 141 Pae. 732. Cai;— Hol- 
den V. Mensinger, 165 Pac. 950; North 
V. Moore, 135 Cal. 621, 67 Pac. 1037. 
Mich. — TurnbuU v. Michigan Gent. E. 
Co., 183 Mich. 213, 150 N. W. 132. 
Mont.— Vaughan v. Kujath, 44 Mont. 
484, 120 Pac. 1121. Ohio.— Walsh v. 
J. E. Thomas Sons, 91 Ohio St. 210, 
110 N. E. 454; Cobble v. Farmers' 
Bank, 63 Ohio St. 528, 59 N. E. 221. 
Okla. — Oklahoma Fire Ins. Co v 
Wagester, 38 Okla. 291, 132 Pac. 1071:' 
Choctaw Lumb. Co, v. Gilmore, 11 Okla. 



PABTNEBSHIP 



55 



2. Actions Ex Contractu. — a. Plaintiffs. — (I.) In General. — As 
a general rule in a suit upon a partnership contract, all persons who 
were partners at the time of making such contract are necessary par- 
ties plaintiff.^* It is permissible,^" but npt necessary, to join either 



462, 68 Pae. 733; Swope v. Burnham, 
6 Okla. 736, 52 Pac. 924. 

[a] Statute not applicable (1) to 
tort actions (Cal. — Ralph v. Lockwood, 
61 Cal. 155. Colo. — Melcher v. Beeler, 
48 Colo. 233, 110 Pac. 181, 139 Am. 
St. Rep. 273; Pedroni v. Eppstein, 17 
Colo. App. 424, 68 Pae. 794. Ohio. 
Anonymous, 7 Ohio N. P. 568), (2) 
nor where an individual is doing busi- 
ness under a fictitious name (Robin- 
ovitz V. Hamill, 44 Okla. 437, 144 Pac. 
1024, L. R. A. 1915D, 981; Oklahoma 
Fire Ins. Co. v. Wagester, 38 Okla. 
291, 132 Pae. 1071), (3) nor where 
a nonresident partnership, not having 
a place of business in the state, trans- 
acts business therein. Cahn v. Gotts- 
chalk, 14 Daly 542, 2 N. T. Supp. 13, 
16 N. Y. St. 818; Swope v. Burnham, 
6 Okla. 736, 52 Pac. 924. 

As to whether an assignee may sue 
where the statute has not been com- 
plied with, see infra, II, D, 2, a, (II), 
note 36. 

As to necessity of pleading compli- 
ance or non-compliance, see infra, 

n, G, 1, b, (IV); n, G, 2, c. 

29. U. S. — Vinal v. West Virginia 
Oil & Oil Land Co., 110 U. S. 215, 4 
Sup. Ct. 4, 28 L. ed. 124; Seymour v. 
Western R. Co., 106 U. S. 320, 1 Sup. 
Ct. 123, 27 L. ed. 103; McAulay v. 
Moody, 185 Fed. 144; Crosby v. Ham- 
merlin g, 170 Fed. 857. Ala. — Simmons 
V. Titche, 102 Ala. 317, 14 So. 786; 
Cochran v. Cunningham's Exr., 16 Ala. 
448, 50 Am.' Dec. 186; Monroe v. 
Ezzell, 11 Ala. 603. Aik. — Cannon v. 
Harmon, 124 Ark. 344, 187 S. W. 164; 
Ingham Lumber Co. v. Ingersoll & Co., 
93 Ark. 447, 125 S. W. 139; Leola 
Lumber Co. v. Bozarth, 91 Ark. 10, 
120 S. W: 152. Ga.— Callaway v. 
Pearson, 139 Ga. 540, 77 S. E. 816; 
Granger v. Knight, 134 Ga. 839, 68 
S. B. 648; Thompson v. McDonald, 84 
Ga. 5, 10 S. E. 448. Haw.— Silva v. 
De Freitas, 18 Hawaii 613. HI. — Amer- 
ican Central Ry. Co. v. Miles, 52 111. 
174. Ky. — Dougherty v. Smith, "Wil- 
son & Co., 4 Mete. 279; Creel v. Bell 
& Co., 2 J. J. Marsh. 309; Snodgrass 
V. Broadwell, 2 Litt. 353. La. — Dorr 
V. Jouet, 20 La. Ann. 27; Gallot v. 
McCIuskey; IS I^ Aon. 259; Uutler 



V. Cochran, 13 La. 482. Me. — Bumpus 
V. Turgeon, 98 Me. 550, 57 Atl. 883; 
Day v. Swann, 13 Me. 165. Md. — Smith 
V. Crichton, 33 Md. 103; Armstrong 
V. Robinson, 5 Gill & J. 412; Mitchell 
V. Dall, 2 Har. & G. 159. Mass.— Fay 
V. Duggan, 135 Mass. 242; Fish v. 
Gates, 133 Mass. 441; Gage v. Rollins, 
10 Mete. 348; Halliday v. Doggett, 6 
Pick. 359. Mo. — Hardesty v. Atchison, 
T. & S. F. By. Co. (Mo. App.), 179 
S. W. 725; Anable v. McDonald Land 
& Min. Co., 144 Mo. App. 303, 128 
S. W. 38. Neb.— Burlington & M. R. 
R. Co. V. Diek, 7 Neb. 242. N. H. 
Kenuiston v. Ham, 29 N. H. 501; 
Pearson v. Parker, 3 N. H. 366. N. Y. 
Frumea v. Glaser, 127 N. Y. Supp. 
321. N. C— Roller v. McKinney, 159 
N. C. 319, 74 S. E. 966; Heaton v. 
Wilson, 123 N. C. 398, 31 S. E. 671; 
Wiley V. Logan, 95 N. C. 358. Ohio. 
Choteau v. Raitt, 20 Ohio 132. Okla. 
Cox V. Gille Hdw. & Iron Co., 8 Okla. 
483, 58 Pac. 645. Pa.— Wilson v. Wal- 
lace, 8 Serg. & R. 53. Tex. — Tynburg 
V. Cohen, 67 Tex. 220, 2 S. W. 734; 
Speake v. Prewitt, 6 Tex. 252; Floore 
V. Burgher & Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 
128 S. W. 1152; Allen v. Fleck, 54 
Tex. Civ. App. 507, 118 S. W. 176; 
Hoskins v. Velasco Nat. Bank, 48 
Tex. Civ. App. 246, 107 S. W. 598. 
Vt. — Sawyer v. Worthington, 28 Vt. 
733. W. Va.— Wetherill v. McOloskey 
Bros. & Co., 28 W. Va. 195. Wis. 
George v. Benjamin, 100 Wis. 622, 76 
N. W. 619, 69 Am. St. Rep. 963; De 
Wit V. Lander, 72 Wis. 120, 39 N. W. 
349; Jackson v. Bohrman, 59 Wis. 422, 
18 N. W. 456. 

[a] One who receives a share of 
the profits of a partnership for his 
services held not a partner and there- 
fore not a necessary party plaintiff. 
Lewis V. Greider, 51 N. Y. 231; Delise 
V. Palladino, 16 Misc. 74, 37 N. Y. 
Supp. 705, 73 N. Y. St. 250. 

fb] But where only one partner is 
really interested, the name of the 
other having been inserted in the con- 
tract by inadvertence, the former may 
sue alone as to the real party in in- 
terest. Ware v. Long, 24 Ky. L. Rep. 
696, 69 S. W. 797. 

30. Jones V. Howard, 53 Miss. 707. 

Vol. XXI 



56 



PABTNEB8HIP 



a dormant'* or a nominaP^ partner unless there is a privity of con- 
tract between them and the defendant.^' An infant partner should be 
made a party plaintiff in his own name upon a demand owing to the 
partnership.^* 

(II.) Upon Assigned Claim. —The common law rule requiring action 
upon an assigned partnership claim to be brought in the name of the 
assignor^' has been generally changed so as to permit suit by a part- 
ner or other person in his own name on a partnership claim assigned 
to him,'^ or a suit in the name of all the partners on a contract made 



31. Ala. — Bank of St. Marys v. St. 
John, Powers & Co., 25 Ala. 566; 
Desha, Smith & Co. v. Holland, 12 
Ala. 513, 46 Am. Dec. 261; Monroe 
V. Ezzell, 11 Ala. 603; Shropshire v. 
Shepperd, 3 Ala. 733. Ark. — Seller i;. 
Block, 19 Ark. 566; Phillips v. Penny- 
wit, 1 Ark. 59. ' Del. — McCabe v. Mor- 
rison, 2 Harr. 66. Ind. — Goble v. Gale, 
7 Blackf. 218, 41 Am. Dec. 219. La. 
Keane v. Fisher & Co., 9 La. Ann. 
70. Me. — Bumpns v. Tnrgeon, 98 Me. 
550, 57 Atl. 883; Barstow v. Gray, 3 
Me. 409. Md.— Smith v. Crichton, 33 
Md. 103; Mitchell v. Dall, 2 Har. & 
G. 159. Mass. — Wright v. Herrick, 125 
Mass. 154; Wood v. O'Kelley, 8 Cush. 
406; Robinson v. Mansfield, 13 Pick. 
139. N. H.— Joyslin v. Taylor, 24 N. 
H. 268. N. J. — Cammack v. Johnson, 
2 N-. J. Bq. 163. N. Y.— Piatt v. 
Halen, 23 Wend. 456; Warner v. Gris- 
wold, 8 Wend. 665; Clark v. Miller, 4 
Wend. 628. Ohio.— Choteau v. Kaitt, 
20 Ohio 132: Beach v. Hayward, 10 
Ohio 455. Pa. — Eogers v. Kichline's 
Admrs., 36. Pa. 293; Morse v. Chase 
& Co., 4 Watts 456; Wilson v. Wal- 
lace, 8 Serg. & E. 53. Tex.— Tyuberg 
V. Cohen, 67 Tex. 220, 2 S. W. 734; 
Garrett v. Muller & Co., 37 Tex. 589; 
Jackson v. Alexander, 8 Tex. 109. Vt. 
Waite & Co. v. Dodge, 34 Vt. 181; 
Lapham v. Green, 9 Vt. 407; Hilliker 
V. Loop, 5 Vt. 116, 26 Am. Dec. 286. 
Wis. — Piatt V. Iron Exchange Bank, 
83 Wis. 358, 53 N. W. 73f; Bird v. 
Fake, 1 Pin. 290. Eng.— Lloyd v. 
Archbowle, 2 Taunt. 324, 1I7 Eng. 
Reprint 1102 (dormant partner cannot 
be joined as defendant's right of set- 
off may be pre.judiced) ; Leveck v. 
Shaftoe, 2 Esp. N. P. 468. 

[a] An ostensible partner is a trus> 
tee of an express trust within the 
meaning -of a statute allowing a trus- 
tee of an express trust to sue without 
.joining the beneficiary and so he need 
not join the dormant partner. Piatt 

Vol. XXI 



, V. Iron Exchange Bank, 83 Wis. 358, 
' 53 N. W. 737. 

32. Ark. — Phillipsi v. Pennywit, 1 
Ark. 59. la. — Enix v. Hays, 48 Iowa 
86. Mass.— Bishop v. Hall, 9 Gray 430. 
N. H.— Hatch v. Wood, 43 N. H. 
633. N. Y.— Beudel v. Hettrick, 3 
Jones & S. 405, 45 How. Pr. 198. Vt. 
Waite & Co. v. Dodge, 34 Vt. 181. 
Eng.— Kell v. Nainby, 10 Barn. & C. 
20, 21 E. C. L. 10, 5 Man. & Ry. 76, 
8 L. J. K. B. O. S. 99, 109 Eng. Re- 
print 358. 

33. Ala. — Monroe v. Ezzell, 11 Ala. 
603. Del. — McCab« v. Morrison, 2 
Harr. 66. Me. — Barstow v. Gray, 3 
Greenl. 409. Ma^s.— Wood v. O'Kelley, 
8 Cush. 406. N. Y.— Clarkson v. Car- 
ter, 3 Cow. 84. Tex. — Jackson v. Alex- 
ander, 8 Tex. 109; Speake v. Prewitt, 
6 Tex. 252. Wis.— Bird v. Fake, 1 
Pin. 290. 

34. Osburn v. Farr, 42 Mich. 134, 
3 N. W. 299, infant's father cannot 
sue as his substitute. But see dictum 
in Phillips v. Pennywit, 1 Ark. 59, 
holding that infant partner is not re- 
quired to join. 

35. See the title "Assignments," 
and the following cases: Ala. — Howell 
V. Reynolds, 12 Ala. 128. Ark.— Molen 
V. Orr, 44 Ark. 486. Me.— Lunt v. 
Stevens, 24 Me. 534. Md.— Allstan 's 
Admr. v. Contee's Exr., 4 Har. & J. 
351. Mass.— Tate v. Citizens' Mut. F. 
Ins. Co., 13 Gray 79; Russell v. Swan, 
16 Mass. 314. N. Y.— Baumert v., 
Daesohler, 65 Misc. 526, 120 N. Y. 
Supp. 957. N. 0.— Gaither v. Caldwell, 
21 N. C. 504. Ore.— Levins v. Stark, 
57 Ore. 189, 110 Pac. 980. Pa.— Mos- 
grove V. Golden, 101 Pa. 605; Horbach 
V. Huey, 4 Watts 455. S. C— Degroot 
V. Darby, 7 Rich. L. 118. Tex.— Cleve- 
land V. Heidenheimer, 92 Tex. 108, 46 
S. W. 30. Can.— Brougham v. Balfour 
3 U. C. C. P. 72. ' 

36. Ariz.— McFadden v. Shanlev, 16 
Ariz. 91, 141 Pae. 732. Cal— Boyce 



PARTNERSHIP 



57 



with an individual or other firm and subsequently assigned to the part- 
nership.'^ 

(III.) By Indorsee. - The general rule that the endorsee of a nego- 
tiable instrument may maintain an action thereon in his own name,^' 
applies where a note made payable to a partnership is indorsed or 
delivered by the payee to another.^® 

(IV.) Where Claim Severed. -A partner cannot maintain a suit in 
his own name on what his partners agree is his share of a debt due 
the firm,*" nor on what he believes to be his share of the demand,*^ 
but if the debtor also agrees to the severance of his joint debt, each 
partner may maintain individual actions for his share.*^ 



V. Gordon, 11 Cal. App. 771, 106 Pac. 
264. Colo. — Walker v. Steele, 9 Colo. 
388, 12 Pac. 423. Ind. — Way v. 
Fravel, 61 Ind. 162; Swails v. Cover- 
dill, 17 Ind. 337. La. — White v. Jones, 
14 La. Ann. 681. Micli. — McKnight 
V. Lowitz, 176 Mich. 452, 142 N. W. 
769. Mo.— Carroll v. Campbell, 110 
Mo. 557, 19 S. W. 809. N. J.— Trow- 
bridge V. D«nning, 80 N. J. L. 236, 77 
Atl. 1068. N. Y.— Phillips v. Clark, 
48 N. Y. 677; Baumert v. Daeschler, 
65 Misc. 526, 120 N. T. Supp. 957. 
Obio. — Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Carnahan, 
63 Ohio St. 258, 58 N. E. 805; West 
V. Citizens' Ins. Co., 27 Ohio St. 1, 
22 Am. Eep. 294. Ore, — Levins v. 
Stark, 57 Ore. 189, 110 Pae. 980. Tex. 
Cleveland v. Heidenheimer, 92 Tex. 
108, 46 S. W. 30; Keels v. Ashworth 
(Tex. Civ. App.), 187 S. W. 1008. Wis. 
Viles V. Bangs, 36 Wis. 131. 

Assignee as real party in interest, 
see generally, 3 Standard Peoc. 112, 
and the title "Parties." 

[a] Where the assignment is not 
authorized by law the assignor must 
be made a party. Arnold v. Moss, 27 
Okla. 524, 112 Pae. 995, partnership 
accounts. 

[b] An assignee of a partner's in- 
terest in a particular contract of the 
partnership is not a necessary party 
to an action upon such contract, since 
the attempted assignment makes the 
assignee but a creditor of the firm. 
Bingel v. Brown, 15 Colo. App. 241, 61 
Pac. 435. 

[e] Where a certificate must be filed 
by a partnership doing business under 
a fictitious name before it is permitted 
to maintain actions on partnership 
matters (1), an assignee may main- 
tain an action on the partnership trans- 
action, although no certificate has been 
filed (Cheney v. Newberry, 67 Cal. 126, 
7 Pae. 445. See also Quan Wye v. 



Chin Lin Hee, 123 Cal. 185, 55 Pac. 
783. Contra, Choctaw Lumb. Co. «. 
Gilmore, 11 Okla. 462, 68 Pac. 733), 
except (2) where the statute forbids 
the assignee as well as the partners 
from suing. Creditors' Adjustment 
Co. V. Eossi, 26 Cal. App. 725, 148 
Pac. 528. As to necessity for such 
certificate, see supra, II, D, 1. 

37. la. — Welsh V. Lemert, 92 Iowa 
116, 60 N. W. 230. N. Y.— Gast v. 
Johnston, 3 N. Y. St. 258. Tex. — Cleve- 
land V. Heidenheimer, 92 Tex. 108, 46 
S. W. 30. Wis. — Badger v. Daenicke, 
56 Wis. 678, 14 N. W. 821. 

38. See 4 Standard Proc. 234. 

39. 111. — American Cent. Ry. Co. v. 
Miles, 52 111. 174. La. — Dorr v. Jouet, 
20 La. Ann. 27. Mass. — Estabrook v. 
Smith, 6 Gray 570, 66 Am. Dec. 443; 
Russell V. Swan, 16 Mass. 314. Minn. 
Pease v. Rush, 2 Minn. 107. Mo. 
Canef ox v. Anderson, 22 Mo. 347. N. H. 
Burnham v. Whittier, 5 N. H. ?34. 
N. Y. — Kirby v. Cogswell, 1 Caines 
505, Golem. & C. Cas. 320. Ore. — Lev- 
ins V. Stark, 57 Ore. 189, 110 Pac. 980. ■ 
Wis. — Manegold v. Dulau, 30 Wis. 541. 

[a] Individual indorsement of one 
partner to another is' not sufficient to 
permit the bringing of the action in 
his name, where the partnership is the 
payee. Estabrook v. Smith, 6 Gray 
(Mass.) 570, 66 Am. Dec. 443. 

40. American Cent. Ry. Co. v. 
Miles, 52 111. 174; Rookwood v. Allen, 
7 Mass. 254. 

41. U. S. — Vinal v. West Virginia 
Oil & Oil Land Co., 110 U. S. 215, 4 
Sup. Ct. 4, 28 L. ed. 124. Md.— Corner 
V. Gilman, 53 Md. 364. Mich. — Bigelow 
V. Reynolds, 68 Mich. 344, 36 N. W. 
95. Mo. — Anable v. McDonald Land 
& M. Co., 144 Mo. App. 303, 128 S. W. 
38. Can.— Marsolais v. Willett, 17 
Queb. Sup. Ct. 262. 

42. Mass. — Baker v. Jewell, 6 Mass. 

Vol. XXI 



58 



PABTNEBSHIP 



(V.) Partner as Trustee. — Where one partner is trustee for the part- 
nership, he need not join the remaining partners in an action in- 
volving the subject-matter of the trust."^ 

(VI.) Contracts in Name of Partner. — Where the contract is made 
on behalf of the partnership as an undisclosed principal, it may bring 
an action thereon,** or the action may be brought by the partner 
alone, in whose name the contract was made,*° in accordance with the 
general principles elsewhere discussed.*" 

b. Defendants. — (I.) in General. - Actions upon partnership eon- 
tracts should be brought against all the partners who were members 
of the firm when the contract was entered into*^ unless they be dor- 



460, 4 Am. Dec. 162. N. J.— Blair 
V. Snover, 10 N. J. L. 153. N. ,y. 
Bunn V. Morris, 3 Gaines 54. 

43. IMlch.— Sheldon v. Bennett, 44 
Mich. 634, 7 N. W. 223. N. Y.— Howe 
V. Savory, 49 Barb. 403. Wis.— Eob- 
bins V. Deverill, 20 Wis. 142. 

As to right of a trustee of an ex- 
press trust to sue alone, see generally 
the title "Parties." 

44. 111. — Havana, R. & E. E. Co. v. 
Walsh, 85 111. 58; Illinois Central R. 
Co. V. Owens, 53 111. 391. Ind.— Ward 
V. Leviston, 7 Blackf. 466. Mass. 
Gage V. Rollins, 10 Mete. 348. Mich. 
Philpott V. Beehtel, 104 Mich. 79, 62 
N. W. 174; Gilbert v. Lichtenberg, 98 
Mich. 417, 57 N. W. 259. N. Y. 
Beakea v. Da Cunha, 126 N. Y. 293, 
27 N. B. 251. P. I. — Tuason v. Zamora 
& Sons, 2 Phil. Isl. 305. S. C— Mun- 
roe V. Williams, 35 S. C. 572, 15 S. E. 
279. Wis. — Badger v. Daenicke, 56 
Wis. 678, 14 N. W. 821. Eng. — Garrett 
V. Handley, 3 Barn. & C. 462, 10 E. C. 
L. 214, 5 D'. & R. 319, 3 L. J. K. B. 
O. S. 47, 107 Eng. Reprint 805. 

But Bee Mead v. Tomlinson, 1 Day 
(Conn.) 148, 2 Am. Dec. 62, that the 
contracting partner only can sue. 

[a] Where a party refuses to con- 
tract with the firm but makes a con- 
tract with a single partner only, the 
latter may sue. Burwitz v. Jeflfers, 
103 Mich. 512, 61 N. W. 784. 

45. D. C. — Simmons V. Jaselli, 38 
App. Cas. 242. Ga. — Council v. Teal, 
122 Ga. 61, 49 S. E. 806. 111.— Hair 
Co. V. Thome, 27 111. App. 502. Ind. 
Ewing V. French, 1 Blackf. 353. la. 
Flanders v. Monroe, 172 Iowa 347, 154 
N. W. 586, is real party in interest. 
La. — Lejeune v. Vaufrey Sugar Plant- 
ing & Mfg. Co., 123 La. 871, 49 So. 
603. Mo. — Taylor v. Steamboat Rob- 
ert Campbell, 20 Mo. 254; Bryant ». 
Phillips, 189 Mo. App. 278, 176 S. W. 

Vol ZXI 



294. N. Y.— Piatt v. Halen, 23 Wend. 
456. Tex. — Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. v. 
Smith, 84 Tex. 348, 19 S. W. 509; 
Covington v. Sloan (Tex. Civ. App.), 
124 S. W. 690. Vt.— Curtis v. Bel- 
knap, 21 Vt. 433. Eng.— Metcalfe v. 
Rycroft, 6 Maule & Sel. 75, 105 Eng. 
Reprint 1171. 

46. See the titles "Parties;" 
"Principal and Agent." 

47. U. a— Bell V. Donohoe, 17 Fed. 
710, 8 S?Lwy. 435. Axk. — Coleman v. 
Fisher, 67 Ark. 27, 53 S. W. 671. Cal. 
Harrison v. McCormick, 69 Cal. 616, 11 
Pac. 456. Colo. — Erskine v. Russell, 
43 Colo. 449', 96 Pac. 249. D. C. 
Parker v. Heald, 29 App. Cas. 35. 
Ga.— Wiley & Co: v. Sledge, 8 Ga. 532. 
m.— Sherburne v. Hyde, 185 111.. 580, 
57 N. E. 776; Sandusky v. Sidwell, 
173 111. 493, 50 N. E. 1003; Coates 
V. Preston, 105 111. 470; Pettis v. At- 
kins, 60 111. 454; Page v. Brant, 18 
111. 37; Fleming v. Ross, 125 111. App. 
265, afflrmed in 225 111. 149, 80 N. E." 
92. Ky. — Heavrin v. Lack Malleable 
Iron Co., 153 Ky. 329, 155 S. W. 729; 
Nichols & Co. t). Burton, 5 Bush 320. 
Md. — Loney v. Bailey, 43 Md. 10; 
Smith V. Cooke, 31 Md. 174, 100 Am. 
Dec. 58; Kent v. Holliday, 17 Md. 387. 
Neb.— Bowen v. Crow, 16 Neb. 556, 20 
N. W. 850; Leach v.- Milburn Wagon 
Co., 14 Neb. 106, 15 N. W. 232; Fox 
V. Abbott, 12 Neb. 328, 11 N. W. 303. 
Nev.— Tinkum v. O'Neale, 5 Nev. 93. 
N. J. — Curtis V. Hollingshead, 14 N. J. 
L. 402. N. Y. — Green v. Lippincott, 
53 How. Pr. 33; Farwell v. Davis, 66 
Barb. 73; Harris v. Schultz, 40 Barb. 
315; Hyde v. Lesser, 93 App. Div 320, 
87 N. Y. Supp. 878; Merrill v. Blknch- 
ard, 7 App. Div. 167, 40 N. Y. Supp. 
48, 7 N. Y. St. 661. N. C— Heaton 
V. Wilson, 123 N. C. 398, 31 S. E. 
671. Okla.— Taby v. McMurray, 30 
Okla, 602, 120 Pae. 664; Hdlden v. 



PARTNERSHIP 



59 



mant** or nominal*' partners -whoTn the plaintiff may, but is not com- 
pelled to, join as defendants. An infant partner should be made a party 
in accordance with the general rule in regard to infants.^" 

(II.) Joint and Several Liability. — "Where the liability of the part- 
ners is made joint and several, a person having a demand against 
the partnership may sue it as such,^^ or may, at his election, bring it 
against all or either of the individual members thereof,^^ or against 



Lynn, 30 Okla. 663, 120 Pac. 246, 38 
L. E. A. (N. S.) 239; Cox v. Gille 
Hdw. & Iron Co., 8 Okla. 483, 58 Pae. 
645. R. I. — Nathanson v. Spitz, 19 B. 
I. 70, 81 Atl. 690. S. C— Pope "Mfg. 
Co. V. Welch, 55 S. 0. 528, 33 S. E. 
787. Tex, — Frank v. Tatum, 87 Tex. 
204, 25 S. W. 409; Tynburg v. Cohen, 
67 Tex. 220, 2 S. W. 734; Davis v. 
Willis, 47 Tex. 154; Biggs v. Lee 
(Tex. Civ. App.), 137 S. "W. 138; 
Floore v. Burgher & Co. (Tex. Civ. 
App.). 128- S. W. 1152. Va.— Ward v. 
Motter, 2 Bob. (41 Va.) 536. W. Va. 
Carlon's Admr. v. Euffner, 12 W. Va. 
297. 

[a] Persons holding themselves out 
as partners may be joined, though 
there is no partnership in fact. Cot- 
trill V. Vanduzen, 22 Vt. 511. 

[b] Strangers to the partnership 
cannot be made defendants to an ac- 
tion on a partnership obligation. Laird 
V. Umberger, 1 Phila. (Pa.) 518. 

[c] The husband of a partner is a 
proper party. Keller v. Hicks, 22 Cal. 
457, 83 Am. Dec. 78. But see 11 
Standard Proc. 734, et seq. 

48. U. S. — Bank of Alexandria v. 
Mandeville, 1 Cranch C. C. 575, 2 Fed. 
Cas. No. 851. Cal. — Tomlinson v. 
Spencer, 5 Cal. 291. HI. — Page v. 
Brant, 18 111. 37; Conley v. Good, 1 111. 
135; Baccash v. United States Tent & 
Awning Co., 135 111. App. 121. Ky. 
Williams v. Eogers, 14 Bush 776. Md. 
Hopkins v. Sent, 17 Md. 72. Mass. 
Wright V. Herriek, 125 Mass. 154; 
Lord V. Baldwin, 6 Pick. 348; Syl- 
vester V. Smith, 9 Mass. 119. Minn. 
Wood V. Cu'llen, 13 Minn. 394. Mo. 
Eiehardson v. Farmer, 36 -Mo. 35, 88 
Am. Dec. 1Z9. N. H.— Elliot v. Stev- 
ens, 38 N. H. 311. N". J. — Cammaok 
V. Johnson, 2 N. J. Eq. 163. N. Y. 
Scott V. Conway, 58 N. Y. 619; Leslie 
V. Wiley, 47 N. Y. 648; North v. Bloss, 
30 N. Y. 374. Pa. — Johnston v. War- 
den, 3 Watts 101. S. 0. — ^Eeab v. 
Pool, 30 S. C. 140, 8 8. E. 703. Tenn. 
Nichols V. Cheairs, 4 Sneed 229. Tex. 
Tynburg v. Cohen, 67 Tex. 220, 2 S. W. 



734; Floore v. Burgher & Co. (Tex. 
Civ. App.), 128 S. W. 1152; Dav-is v. 
Bingham (Tex. Civ. App.), 46 S. W. 
840. Vt.— Hagar v. Stone, 20 Vt. 106; 
Blin V. Pierce, 20 Vt. 25; Hicks & 
Co. V. Cram, 17 Vt. 449. Va.— Ward 
V. Motter, 2 Rob. (41 Va.) 536. Eng. 
De Mautort v. Saunders, 1 Barn. & 
A. 398, 20 E. C. L. 534, 9 L. J. K. B. 
O. S. 51, 109 Eng. Eeprint 836; Beck- 
ham V. Drake, 9 Mees. & W. 79. 

[a] The nonjoinder of a dormant 
partner cannot be questioned by a de- 
fendant. Cal. — Tomlinson v. Spencer, 

5 Cal. 291. 111.— Conley v. Good, 1 HI. 
135. Md.— Hopkins v. Kent, 17 Md. 
72. Nev. — Pinsehowers v. Hanks, 18 
Nev. 99, 1 Pac. 454. N. Y.— New York 
Dry-Dock Co. v. Tread well, 19 Wend. 
525. Pa.— Carey v. Bright, 58 Pa. 70. 
Vt.— Hagar «. Stone, 20 Vt. 106; Hicks 

6 Co. V. Cram, 17 Vt. 449; Cleveland 
V. Woodward, 15 Vt. 302, 40 Am. Dec. 
682; Goddard v. Brown, 11 Vt. 278. 
Eng. — De Mautort v. Saunders, 1 Barn. 
& A. 398, 20 E. C. L. 534, 9 L. J. 
K B. O. S. 51, 109 Eng. Eeprint 
836. 

49. Hatch v. Wood, 43 N. H. 633. 

50. Gay v. Johnson, 32 N. H. 167. 
As to general rule, see supra, II, D, 

2, a, (I). 

As to judgment rendered in action 
where plea of infancy is sustained, see 
infra, II, J, 3, e. 

51. Hallowell v. McLaughlin Bros. 
(Iowa), 121 N. W. 1039; Anderson v. 
Wilson, 142 Iowa 158, 120 N. W. 677; 
Lewinson v. First Nat. Bank, 11 N. M. 
510, 70 Pae. 567; Curran v. Kendall 
Boot & Shoe Co., 8 N. M. 417, 45 Pac. 
1120. 

[ a] Substitution of Partners. — Where 
plaintiff elects to make the partner- 
ship the sole defendant, he cannot be 
compelled to substitute the partners 
as defendants, either upon the appli- 
cation of the partnership or the part- 
ners. Hallowell v. McLaughlin Bros. 
(Iowa), 121 N. W. 1039. 

52. Ala. — Brooks v. Lowenstein, 124 
Ala. 158, 27 So. 520; Alexander «. 

Vol. XXI 



60 



PABTNEBSfflP 



it and all or any of the members thereof." 

(HI.) Assumptian by Partner of Firm Indebtedness. —The mere fact 
that one partner assumes the firm liabilities and assets, with knowl- 
edge of the creditors, does not prevent the latter from suing all the 
partners."* 

(IV.) Contracts Made With Individual Member. —The firm should not 
be made a party to an action upon an individual obligation of one 
of its members,"' nor are the other members of the firm necessary 
parties to an action upon a contract made in the name of one of the 
partners, nothwithstanding it was in fact made in behalf of the firm."' 

3. Actions Ex Delicto. — a. Plaintiffs. — To redress injuries to 
the firm, the partnership and not an individual member must sue," 



Jones, 90 Ala. 474, 7 So. 903. Ark. 
Kent V. Wells, 21 Ark. 411; Hicks v. 
Branton, 21 Ark. 186; Hicks v. ManesB, 
19 Ark. 701; Burgen v. Dwinal, 11 
Ark. 314; Hamilton v. Buxton, 6 Ark. 
24. Ga.— Bray c. Peace, 131 Ga. 637, 
62 S. E. 1025. la.— Hallowell v. Mc- 
Laughlin Bros., 121 N. W. 1039; An- 
derson V. Wilson, 142 Iowa 158, 120 
N. W. 677; Allen v. Maddox, 40 Iowa 
124; Eyerson v. Hendrie, 22 Iowa 480; 
Sherman v. Christy, 17 Iowa 322. Kan. 
Crane v. Ring, 48 Kan. 58, 28 Pac. 
1010. Ky. — Hunt v. Semonin, 79 Ky. 
270; Fulton v. Whitehead, 8 Ky. L. 
Hep. 525, action, upon a promissory 
note executed in the firm name. Miss. 
Miller v. Northern Bank, 34 Miss. 412; 
Keerl v. Bridgers, 10 Smed. & M. 612; 
Nutt V. Hunt, 4 Smed. & M. 702; Fair- 
child V. Grand Gulf Bank, 5 How. 597. 
Mo. — Hutchinson v. Eichmond Safety 
Gate Co., 247 Mo. 71, 152 S. W. 52; 
Knox County Sav. Bank v. Cottey, 70 
Mo. 150; Cannon v. Wing, 150 Mo. 
App. 12, 129 S. W. 718. N. M.— Lew- 
inson v. First Nat. Bank, 11 N. M. 
510, 70 Pac. 567; Curran v. Kendall 
Boot & Shoe Co., 8 N. M. 417, 45 Pac. 
1120. N. Y. — Snow v. Howard, 35 Barb. 
55, joint and several promissory note. 
N. C— Eufty V. Claywell, Powell & 
Co., 93 N. 0. 306; Logan v. Wallis, 76 
N. C. 416. Tenn. — Saunders v. Wilder, 
2 Head 577. Tex. — Webb v. Gregory, 
49 Tex. Civ. App. 282, 108 S. W. 478; 
Hoxie V. Farmers' & Mechanics' Nat. 
Bank, 20 Tex. Civ. App. 462, 49 S. W. 
637. W. Va.— Lee v. Hassett, 41 W. 
Va. 368, 23 S. E. 559. 

fa] Nominal partners or persons 
Iiolding themselves out as members of 
a partnership may be sued alone with- 
out .ioining the actual partners. Rabittc 
V. Orr, 83 Ala. 185, 3 So. 420. 

Vol. XXI 



[b] By dismissing the suit as to 
one partner, the. plaintiff elects to pro- 
ceed against the other partner sev- 
erally. Mitchell V. Greenwald, 43 Miss. 
167. 

53. U. S. — Martin v. Meyer, 45 Fed. 
435. Ala.— Eabitte v. Orr, 83 Ala. 185, 
3 So. 420. la. — Anderson v. Wilson, 
142 Iowa 158, 120 N. W. 677. Tex. 
Webb V. Gregory, 49 Tex. Civ. App. 
282, 108 S. W. 478. 

54. See infm, II, D, 5, a. 

55. m.— Watt i;. Kirby, 15 HI. 200. 
Ky. — Lafon v. Chinn, 6 B. Mon. 305. 
Mo. — Gates v. Watson, 54 Mo. 585. 
N. Y. — New York Fireproof Tenement 
Assn. V. Stanley, 105 App. Div. 432, 
94 N. Y. Supp. 160. Vt.— Prentiss v. 
Foster, 28 Vt. 742; Holmes v. Burton, 
9 Vt. 252, 31 Am. Dee. 621. Va. 
Gait's Exrs. v. Calland's Exr., 7 Leigh 
(34 Va.) 594. 

56. Mass. — Sylvester v. Smith, 9 
Mass. 119. N. H. — Clark v. Amoskeag 
Mfg. Co., 62 N. H. 612. N. Y.— Far- 
well V. Davis, 66 Barb. 73; Clark v. 
Holmes, 3 Johns. 148. Ohio. — Caldwell 
V. Devinney, 7 Ohio Dec. (Eeprint) 
599. Vt. — Cleveland v. Woodward, 15 
Vt. 302, 40 Am. Dec. 682; Goddard v. 
Brown, 11 Vt. 278. 

57. Ala. — Donnell v. Jones, 13 Ala. 
490, 48 Am. Dec. 59. Cal.— Hughes v. 
Boring, 16 Cal. 81; Nightingale v. 
Scannell, 6 Cal. 506, 65 Am. Dec. 525. 
Conn. — Leavet v. Sherman, 1 Eoot 159. 
111. — Lachmann v. Benson, 1B7 111. App. 
85. Me. — Gannett v. (Sunningham, 34 
Me. 56. Mass. — Eussell v. Cole, 167 
Mass. 6, 44 N. E. 1057, 57 Am. St. 
Rep. 432; Eobinson v. Mansfield, 13 
Pick. 139; Patten v. Gurney, 17 Mass. 
182, 9 Am. Dec. 141. Mich.— Bigelow 
v. Eeynolds, 68 Mich. 344, 36 N. W. 
95; Haynes v. Knowles, 36 Mich. 407. 



PAETNEKSHIP 



61 



but the latter must proceed alone for torts resulting in damage to 
him individually.''* When one partner colludes with a stranger to 
injure his copartners, the latter may maintain a joint action for in- 
jury to. their common interest in the partnership fund.^* 

Eeplevin should generally be maintained in the names of all the part- 
ners jointly,"" but a partner entitled to the possession of firm prop- 
erty may replevy it against a third person."^ 

b. Defendants. — ■ Liability for a tort being a joint and several one, 
the plaintiff may, in an action for a tort committed by a partnership, 
sue any individual member of the firm,*^ or he may sue all of the part- 



Minti. — Cochrane v. Quackenbush, 29 
Minn. 376, 13 N. W. 154. NeD.— Ed- 
wards V. Hatfield, 93 Neb. 712, 141 
N. W. 1020; Peaks v. Graves, 25 Neb. 
235, 41 N. W. 151. N. H,. — Newman 
V. Bean, 21 N. H. 93. N. Y.— Collier 
V. Postum Cereal Co., 150 App. Div. 
169, 134 N. Y. Supp. 847; Moppar i'. 
Wiltehik, 56 Misc. 676, 107 N. Y. 
Supp. 594; Kornblum v. Commercial 
Advertiser Assn., 164 N. Y. Supp. 186. 
Tex.— Barker v. Abbott, 2 Tex. Civ. 
App. 147, 21 S. W. 72. Vt.— Farnum 
V. Ewell, 59 Vt. 327, 10 Atl. 527. 
Wash.— Seidell v. Taylor, 86 Wash. 
645, 151 Pac. 41, complaint held suffi- 
cient to state cause of action in part- 
nership. Eng. — Harrison v. Bevington, 
8 Car. & P. 708, 34 E. C. L. 975; 
Haythorn v. Lawson, 3 Car. & P. 196, 
14 E. C. L. 523; Williams v. Beaumont, 
10 Bing. 260, 25 E. C. L. 127, 3 Moo. 
& Sc. 705, 3 L. J. C. P. 31, 131 Eng. 
Eeprint 904. 

58. Ala. — Donnell v. Jones, 13 Ala. 
490, 48 Am. Dee. 59. Conn. — Leavet 
V. Sherman, 1 Root 159. Ga.— Consti- 
tution Pub. Co. V. Way, 94 Ga. 120, 

21 S. E. 139; Copeland' v. Tyus, 18 Ga. 
App. 196, 89 S. E. 188. Ind.— Ander- 
son V. Evansville Brew. Assn., 49 Ind. 
App. 403, 97 N. E. 445. Ind. Ter. 
Carlisle v. McAlester, 3 Ind. Ter. 164, 
53 S. W. 531. la.— Hollgren v. Des 
Moinea City R. Co., 174 Iowa 568, 156 
N. W. 690. Kan. — Spalding v. Black, 

22 Kan. 55; Hogendobler v. Lyon, 12 
Kan. 276, where partnership property 
was converted after dissolution, the 
partner aiding in the conversion need 
not be joined. N. Y. — Calkins v. Smith, 
48 N. Y. 614, 8 Am. Dec. 575; Collier 
V. Postum Cereal Co., 150 App. Div. 
169, 134 N. Y. Supp. 847; Eosenwald 
V. Hammerstein, 12 Daly 377. Eng. 
Story V. Richardson, 6 Bing. N. C. 
123, 37 E. C. L. 541, 8 Scott 291, 9 
L, J. C, P, 43, 4 Jur. 26, 133 Eng. 



Reprint 49; Harrison v. Bevington, 8 
Car. & P. 708, 34 E. C. L. ,975. 

59. Cochrane v.' Quackenbush, 29 
Minn. 376, 13 N. W. 154. 

60. Ind. — Ferguson v. Day, 6 Ind. 
App. 138, 33 N. E. 213. Neb.— Cinfel 
V. Malena, 67 Neb. 95, 93 N. W. 165. 
N. Y. — Freeman v. Abramson, 30 Misc. 
101, 61 N. Y. Supp. 839. N. 0. 
Heaton v. Wilson, 123 N. C. 398, 31 
S. E. 671. 

61. Anderson v. Stewart, 108 Md. 
340, 70 Atl. 228. 

[a] Interest of Paitner Levied on. 
Where a writ of attachment was 
levied on the interest of a partner in 
the partnership assets, the other part- 
ner may replevy the property and in 
the replevin suit have the value of 
the partner's interest ascertained, and 
after paying such value may retain 
the property. Coggshall v. Munger, 54 
Mo. App. 420. 

Beplevin against another partner, 
see supra, I, A, 5. 

62. Oal. — Murphy v. Coppietera, 136 
Cal. 317, 68 Pac. 970; Rogers v. Ponet, 
21 Cal. App. 577, 132 Pac. 851. Colo. 
Rice V. Van Why, 49 Colo. 7, 111 Pac. 
599. Conn. — ^Pratt v. Brewster, 52 
Conn. 65. HI. — Heidenreich v. Brem- 
ner, 260 111. 439, 103 N. E. 275, af- 
firming judgment in 176 111. App. 230. 
Md.— Stockton v. Prey, 4 Gill 406, 45 
Am. Dec. 138. Mass. — Brady v. Nor- 
cross, 172 Mass. 331, 52 N. E. 528; 
Patten v. Qurney, 17 Mass. 182, 9 Am. 
Dee. 141. Mo. — Hutchinson v. Rich- 
mond Safety Gate Co., 247 Mo. 71, 
152 S. W. 52. nr. Y.—In re Peek, 206 
N. Y. 55, 99 N. E. 258, Ann Cas. 
1914A, 798, 41 L. E. A. (N. S.) 1223; 
Roberts v. Johnson, 58 N. Y. 613; 
Hyde & Sons v. Lesser, 93 App. Div. 
320, 87 N. Y. Supp. 878. Okla.— Holden 
V. Lynn, 30 Okla. 663, 120 Pac. 246, 
38 L. R. A. (N. S.) 239. S. C— White 
V. Smith, 12 Rich. L. 595. Vt. — ^Lewes 

Vol. XXI 



62 



PARTNERSHIP 



ners,*' or any number of them,'* and he may join the partnership 
itself where it is a legal entity.'" Where, however, the action is upon 
a tort founded on a breach of a contract by the firm, all the partners 
are necessary parties defendant to such suit, since the action in effect 
is upon a joint contract.'' 

4. Where Common Members. — Actions ex contractu were not 
maintainable at common law between partnerships having a common 
member,'^ nor between an individual and a partnership of which he is 



■V. Crane & Sons, 78 Vt. 216, 62 Atl. 
60. Wis. — ^Wood V. Luscomb, 23 Wis. 
287. Eng. — Edmondson v. Davis, 4 
Esp. N. P. 14. 

^3. Ogl. — ^Murphy v. Coppieters, 136 
Cal. 317, 68 Pae. 970; Rogers v. Ponet, 
21 Cal. App. 577, 132 Pae. 851. Colo. 
Rice V. Van Why, 49 Colo. 7, 111 Pae. 
599. Ga.-r-Page v. Citizens' Banking 
Co., Ill Ga. 73, 36 S. E. 418, 78 Am. 
St. Eep. 144, 51 L. R. A. 463. lU. 
Heidenreich v. Bremner, 260 HI. 439, 
103 N. E. 275, affirming judgment in 
176 m. App. 230. Me.— Head v. Good- 
win, 37 Me. 181. Mass. — ^Patten v. 
Gurney, 17 Mass. 182, 9 Am. Dee. 141. 
Mo. — Hutchinson v. Richmond Safety 
Gate Co., 247 Mo. 71, 152 S. W. 52. 
N. Y.—In re Peck, 206 N. Y. 55, 99 
N. E. 258, Ann. Cas. 1914A, 798, 41 
L. R. A. (N. S.) 1223; Roberts v. John- 
son, 58 N. T. 613. S. C— Barfield v. 
Coker & Co., 73 S. C. 181, 53 S. E. 
170; Hyrne v. Erwin, 23 S. C. 226, 55 
Am. Rep. 15; White v. Smith, 12 Rich. 
L. 595. Wis. — ^Fletcher v. Ingram, 46 
Wis. 191, 50 N. W. 424. 

64. Cal. — Rogers v. Ponet, 21 Cal. 
App. 577, 132 Pae. 851. DL— Heiffen- 
reieh v. Bremner, 260 III. 439, 103 
N. E. 275. N. Y.—In re Peck, 206 
N. T. 55, 99 N. E. 258, Ann. Cas. 
1914A, 798, 41 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1223; 
Roberts v. Johnson, 58 N. Y. 613; 
Bank of Orange v. Brown, 3 Wend. 
158. S. C— White v. Sihith, 12 Rich. 
L. 595. Tex. — Biggs v. Lee (Texr Civ. 
App.), 137 S. W. 138; Webb v. Greg- 
ory, 49 Tex. Civ. App. 282, 108 S. W. 
478. 

65. Page v. Citizens' Bank Co., Ill 
Ga. 73, 36 S. E. 418, 78 Am. St. Eep. 
144, 51 L. R. A. 463. 

66. Minn. — Whittaker v. Collins, 34 
Minn. 299, 25 N. W. 632, 57 Am. Rep. 
55. N. Y. — Harris v. Schultz, 40 Barb. 
315; Orange Bank v. Brown, 3 Wend. 
158. Eng.— Buddie v. Willson, 6 Term 
E. 369, 101 Eng. Reprint 600. 

See generally the title "Parties." 

67. Ala. — Alexander v. Jones, 90 

Vol. XXI 



Ala. 474, 7 So. 903. HI.— Haven v. 
Wakefield, 39 111. 509. Kan.— Frye v. 
Sanders, 21 Kan. 26, 30 Am. Rep. 421. 
Me. — Denny v. Metcalf, 28 Me. 389. 
Md. — Thompson v. Young, 90 Md. 72, 
44 Atl. 1037. Minn.- Crosby *. Tim- 
olat, 50 Minn. 171, 52. N. W. 526. 
Mo. — Willis V. Barron, 143 Mo. 450, 45 
S. W. 289, 65 Am. St. Rep. 673; Wil- 
son V. Benedict, 90 Mo. 208, 2 S. W. 
283. N. H.— Blaisdell v. Ladd, 14 N. 
H. 129; Burley v. Harris, 8 N. H. 233, 
29 Am. Dec. 650. N. T. — Taylor v. 
Thompson, 176 N. Y. 168, 68 N. E. 
240; Cole v. Reynolds, 18 N. Y. 74. 
N. C. — Rogers v. Rogers, 40 N. C. 31. 
Ohio. — Gibson & Co. v. Ohio Farina 
Co., 2 Disn. 499, 13 Ohio Dec. 306. 
Ore. — Beaeannon v. Liebe, 11 Ore. 443, 
5 Pae. 273. Tenn. — Banks v. Mitchell, 
8 Yerg. Ill, 29 Am. Dec. 106. Vt, 
Green v. Chapman, 27 Vt. 236. Eng. 
Bosanquet v. Wray, 6 Taunt. 597, 1 
E. C. L. 771, 2 Marsh. 319, 128 Eng. 
Reprint 1167. 

[a] An assignment of the claim by 
the common partner (1) to his copart- 
ners will not give the assignees the 
right to maintain a suit against the 
other fi^rm of which he is a member 
(Taylor v. Thompson, 176 N. Y. 168, 
68 N. E. 240; Englis v. Furniss, 2 Abb. 
Pr. [N. Y.] 333, 4 E. D. Smith 587); 
(2) but where the claim is assigned 
by the partnership to another person, 
he may maintain an action thereon. 
Beaeannon v. Liebe, 11 Ore. 443, 5 
Pae. 273. 

[b] Where one firm contracts with 
an individual of another firm having 
a common member, this principle does 
not apply and an action is properly 
maintainable. Moore v. Gano, 12 Ohio 
300; Jungk v. Reed, 9 Utah 49, 33 
Pae. 236. 

[c] In case of the death of the 
common member, the survivor of one 
firm may sue the Burvivor of the 
debtor firm. Lacy v. Le Bruce, 6 Ala. 
904. 

[d] Whore the contracts of part- 



PABTNEBSHIP 



63 



a member.'" The rights between such firms, or firm and individual, 
could only be adjusted in a court of equity.'* Now, however, statutes 
frequently authorize such suits to be maintained in a court of law,'" 
and in states where the law and equity jurisdiction is no longer sepa- 
rate, such suits may be maintained, the court considering questions 
both of law and equity.''^ 

5. Changes in the Firm Before Suit. — a. Dissolution in General. 
After dissolution of the firm the partners should sue and be sued in 
the same manner as before, that is to say, in their individual names," 



ners are joint and several, a member 
of a firm may be a coplaintiff in aii 
action on a partnership demand 
against another, firm of which he is 
a partner, provided he is not also 
joined in the action as defendant. 
Ala. — Alexander v. Jones, 90 Ala. 474, 
7 Sg. 903. Miss. — Morris -v. Hillery, 
7 How. 61. Mo. — Willis v. Barron, 143 
Mo. 450, 45 S. W. 289, 65 Am. St. 
Eep. 673. 

68. la. — Hanley v. Elm Grove Mut. 
Tel. Co., 150 Iowa 198, > 129 N. W. 
807; Cooper v. Nelson, 38 Iowa 440. 
Me.— Denny v. Metcalf, 28 Me. 389; 
Davis V. Briggs, 39 Me. 304. Md. 
Kennedy v. McFadon, 3 Har. & J. 
194, 5 Am. Dec. 434. Mass. — Thayer 
V. Buffum, 11 Mete. 398; Pitcher v. 
Barrows, 17 Pick. 361, 28 Am. Dee. 
306. Mich.— Kalamazoo Trust Co. v. 
Merrill, 1.59 Mich. 649, 124 N. W. 597. 
Mo. — Willis V. Barron, 143 Mo. 450, 45 
S. W. 289, 65 Am. St. Rep. 673. N. H. 
Burley v. Harris, 8 N. H. 233, 29 Am. 
Dec. 650. 

[a] The indorsee of the common 
partner may maintain such an action. 
Me. — Davis v. Briggs, 39 Me. 304. 
Mass. — Thayer v. Buffum, 11 Mete. 
398; Pitcher v. Barrows, 17 Pick. 361, 
28 Am. Dec. 306. Mich. — Carpenter v. 
Greenop, 74 Mich. 664, 42 N. W. 276, 
16 Am. St. Eep. 662, 4 L. E. A. 241. 
Mo.— Willis V. Barron, 143 Mo. 450, 
45 S. W. 289, 65 Am. St. Eep. 673. 

■ Vt.— Walker v. Wait, 50 Vt. 668. 

[b] An action of mandamus is not 
governed by this technical rule of 
parties. Cooper v. Nelson, 38 Iowa 440. 

69. la. — Ford v. Independent Dis- 
trict, 46 Iowa 294; Cooper v. Nelson, 
38 Iowa 440. Minn. — Crosby v. Tim- 
olat, 50 Minn. 171, 52 N. W. 526. Mo. 
Willis V. Barron, 143 Mo. 450, 45 S. W. 
289, 65 Am. St. Eep. 673. N. Y. 
Taylor v. Thompson, 176 N. Y. 168, 68 
N. E. 240; Cole v. Reynolds, 18 N. Y. 
74; Schnaier v. Schmidt, 59 Hun 625, 



13 N. Y. Supp. 725, 37 N. Y. St. 638. 
Ohio. — Gibson & Co. v. Ohio Farina 
Co., 2 Disn. 499, 13 Ohio Dec. 306. 
Ore. — Beacannon v. Liebe, 11 Ore. 443, 

5 Pac. 273. Tenn.— Banks v. Mitchell, 
8 Yerg. Ill, 29 Am. Dec. 106. Vt. 
Green v. Chapman, 27 Vt. 236. 

70. Ala. — Alexander v. Jones, 90 
Ala. 474, 7 So. 903. Kan. — Frye v. 
Sanders, 21 Kan. 26, action simple debt 
where no accounting necessary. Mich. 
Carpenter v. Greenop, 74 Mich. 664, 42 
N. W. 276, 16 Am. St. Eep. 662, 4 
L. E. A. 241. Pa. — Pennock v. Swayne, 

6 Watts & S. 239. Utah.— Jungk v. 
Eeed, 9 Utah 49, 33 Pac. 236. 

71. Mich. — Carpenter v. Greenop, 74 
Mich. 664, 42 N. W. 276, 16 Am. St. 
Eep. 662, 4 L. E. A. 241. N. Y.— First 
Nat. Bank v. Wood, 128 N. Y. 35, 27 
N. B. 1020; Cole v. Eeynolds, 18 N. Y. 
74; Mangels v. Shaen, 21 App. Div. 
507, 48 N. Y. Supp. 526; Schnaier v. 
Schmidt, 59 Hun 625, 13 N. Y. Supp. 
725, 37 N. Y. St. 638. Tex.— Douglass, 
Brown & Co. v. Neil & Co., 37 Tex. 
528. Utah.— Jennings v. Pratt, 19 Utah 
129, 56 Pac. 951. 

72. Ala. — Gooden v. Morrow & Co., 
8 Ala. 486. Ark. — Mathews v. Paine, 
47 Ark. 54, 14 S. W. 463. Oal.— Braun 
17. WooUacott, 129 Cal. 107, 61 Pac. 
801. Colo. — ^Walker v. Steele, 9 Colo. 
388, 12 Pac. 423. Conn. — Whiting v. 
Farrand, 1 Conn. 60. Ga. — Thompson 
V. McDonald, 84 Ga. 5, 10 S. E. 448. 
Haw. — Silva v. De Freitas, 18 Hawaii 
613. 111. — Heidenreich v. Bremner, 260 
111. 439, 103 N. E. 275, affirming judg- 
ment, 176 111. App. 230. La.— Helm v. 
O'Eourke, 46 La. Ann. 178, 15 So. 
400. Me. — Gannett v. Cunningham, 34 
Me. 56. Mass. — Hyde v. Moxie Nerve- 
Food Co., 160 Mass. 559, 36 N. E. 
585; Fish V. Gates, 133 Mass. 441. 
Mich.— Hayes v. Knox, 41 Mich. 529, 
2 N. W. 670. Miss. — Holmes v. Stands, 
26 Miss. 639. Mo.— Willis Coal & 
Mining Co. v. Furstenfeld, 146 Mo. 

Vol. XXI 



64 



PABTNEBSHIP 



and not in the name of one of the former partners,^' unless there has 
been an assignment to him.''* Thus where a partnership is dissolved 
by one partner retiring, he should still be made a party to a suit 
brought upon a partnership obligation^' 

Assumption of Firm Indebtedness by One Partner. —Where by agree- 
ment between the partners one or more of them assumes the firm lia- 
bilities the creditor may still pursue his remedy against all the part- 
ners,^" except in ease of a novation or agreement by the creditor to 
accept the new arrangement, in which ease the retiring partner is 
discharged from liability and is neither a necessary nor proper party." 

Under the principle that a party, for whose benefit a contract was 
made, may maintain an action thereon,^* the creditors of a firm may 
maintain an action against the remaining partner upon an agreement 
made by him with the retiring partner to pay the debts of the firm,'* 
and if there is a surety upon such agreement, he may be joined as a 
party defendant.*" 



App. 279, 129 S. W. 1028. Neb.— O 'Shea 
V. Kavanaugh, 65 Neb. 639, 91 N. W. 
578. N. Y.— Hill v. Packard, 5 "Wend. 
375. Okla. — Moore v. Leigh-Head & 
Co., 48 Okla. 228, 149 Pac. 1129. 

73. Ark. — Mathews v. Paine, 47 
Ark. 54, 14 S. W. 463. Conn.— Soule 
V. Borelli, 80 Conn. 392, 68 Atl. 979. 
Ga. — Thompson v. McDonald, 84 6a. 
5, 10 S. B. 448. Me.— Gannett v. Cun- 
ningham, 34 Me. 56. Mass. — Hyde v. 
Moxie Nerve-Food Co., 160 Mass. 550, 
36 N. E. 585; Fish v. Gates, 133 Mass. 
441. Mich. — McKnight v. Lowitz, 176 
Mich. 452, 142 N. "W. 769. Neb. 
O'Shea v. Kavanaugh, 65 Neb. 639, 91 
N. W. 578. N. J.— Wright v. William- 
son, 3 N. J. L. 532. 

74. McKnight v. Lowitz, 176 Mich. 
452, 142 N. W. 769. 

75. Smith v. Shelden, 35 Mich. 42, 
24 Am. Eep. 529 (retiring partner be- 
comes surety of partner assuming the 
firm obligation); Dodd v. Dreyfus, 17 
Hun (N. Y.) 600, 57 How. Pr. 319; 
Briggs V. Briggs, 20 Barb. (N. Y.) 477. 

76. Ala. — Anniston First Nat. Bank 
i\ Cheney, 114 Ala. 536, 21 So. 1002; 
Hall V. Jones, 56 Ala. 493; Shorter, 
Papot & Co. V. Hightower, 48 Ala. 
526. Ind.— Clark v. Billings, 59 Ind. 
508. la. — McAreavy v. Magril, 123 
Iowa 605, 99 N. W. 193. Mass. — Ayer 
V. Kilner, 148 Mass. 468, 20 N. E. 
163. N. J.— Gulick v. Guliek, 16 N. 
J. L. 186. N. y.— Umbarger v. Plume, 
26 Barb. 461. Pa. — Griffee v. Griffee, 
173 Pa. 434, 34 Atl. 441. Tex.— East- 
ham V. Patty, 29 Tex. Civ. App. 473, 
69 S. W. 224; Gill V. Biekel, 10 Tex. 

Vol. XXI 



Civ. App. 67, 80 S. W. 919. W. Va. 
Barnes v. Boyers, 34 W. Va. 303, 12 
S. E. 708. 

[a] In New York the creditor with 
notice is bound to recognize the rela- 
tion of principal and surety existing 
between the partners in such case, and 
must first pursue the partner who 
takes the assets and assumes the debts. 
Carroll v. Sharp, 67 Misc. 254, 122 N. 
Y. Supp. 694; Phillips v. Mendelsohn, 
121 N. Y. Supp 913. 

77. XJ. S. — ^Eegester v. Dodge, 6 
Fed. 6, 19 Blatchf. 79, 61 How. Pr. 
107. N. T.— Dodd v. Dreyfus, 17 Hun 
600, 57 How. Pr. 319; Whitlock v. Mc- 
Kecbnie, 1 Bosw. 427. S. C. — Ander- 
son & Co. V. Holmes, 14 S. C. 162. 

78. See generally the title "Par- 
ties." 

79. U. S.— Fish v. First Nat. Bank, 
150 Fed. 524, 80 C. C. A. 266; In re 
Downing, 1 Dill. 33, 7 Fed. Cas. No. 
4,044. . Colo. — Lehow v. Simonton, 3 
Colo. 346. Ind.— Way v. Fravel, 61 
Ind. 162; Haggerty v. Johnston, 48 
Ind. 41; Dunlap v. McNeil^ 35 Ind. 
316; Devol V. Mcintosh, 23 Ind. 529; 
Case V. Ellis, 4 Ind. App. 224, 30 N. E. 
907. la.— Malanaphy v. Fuller & J. 
Mfg. Co., 125 Iowa 719, 101 N. W. 
640, 106 Am. Sti Eep. 332. Mo. 
Meyer v. Lowell, 44 Mo. 328. Neb. 
McKillip V. Cattle. 12 Neb. 477, 11 
N. W. 735. Pa.— Bellas v. Fagely, 19 
Pa. 273. Wis.— Clasgens Co. v. Silber, 
93 Wis. 579, 67 N. W. 1122; Kimball 
V. Noyes, 17 Wis. 695. 

80. Dunlap v. McNeil, 35 Ind. 316: 
Devol V. Mcintosh, 23 Ind, 529. 



PARTNERSHIP 



65 



b. Admission of New Partner. — It is not proper to join a part- 
ner who has become such after the making of the contract sued on,*'^ 
or after the accrual of the cause of action,'^ unless the new firm be- 
comes the assignee or is substituted by novation in the place of. the 
old firm, in which event, the incoming member may sue or be sued as 
a member of such new firm.*^ 

6. Bankruptcy or Insolvency. — The assignee in bankruptcy,^* 
and not the members of the bankrupt firm,^° is the proper person 
to prosecute or defend suits by or against the firm. 

After insolvency or 'bankruptcy of one partner, the solvent members and 
the assignee should, except where the statute does not pass title to 
the property to the assignee,^" join as plaintiffs" in the prosecution of 



81. N. Y. — Smith v. Douglass, 4 
Dalv 191. Tex. — Maverick v. Maury, 
79 Tex. 435, 15 S. W. 686; Gill v. 
Bickel, 10 Tex. Civ. App. 67, 30 S. W. 
919. Bng. — Wilsford v. Wood, 1 Esp. 
N. P. 182; Vere v. Ashby, 10 Barn. 
& C. 288, 21 E. C. li. 127, LI. & W. 
20, 8 L. J. K. B. O. S. 57, 109 Eng. 
Eeprint 457. 

82. U. S. — Atwood V. Lockhart, 4 
McLean 350, 2 Fed. Cas. No. 642. Ala. 
Hatchett v. Blanton, 72 Ala. 423; 
Shorter, Papot & Co. v. Hightower, 48 
Ala. 526. Ark.— Eingo v. Wing, 49 
Ark. 457, 5 S. W. 787. Ga.— Pfeifler 
& Co. V. Hunt,' 75 Ga. 513; Bracken 
V. Dillon & Sons, 64 Ga. 243, 37 Am. 
Eep. 70. Md. — ^Firemen's Ins. Co. v. 
Floss, 67 Md. 403, 10 Atl. 139, 1 Am, 
St. Bep. S98. Mass. — Armaby v. Far 
nam, 16 Pick. 318. Tex. — Neal v. Ad 
kins (Tex. Civ. App.), 145 S. W. 264 

83. XJ. S. — Regester v. Dodge, 6 Fed, 
6, 19 Blatehf. 79, 61 How. Pr. 107, 
Ark. — Eingo v. Wing, 49 Ark. 457, 5 
S. W. 787. Fla.-^Tysen v. Somerville, 
35 Fla. 219, 17 So. 567. Ga.— Bracken 
V. Dillon, 64 Ga. 243, 37 Am. Rep. 70. 
Md. — Firemen's Ins. Co. v. Floss, 67 
Md. 403, 10 Atl. 139, 1 Am. St. Eep. 
398. Mich. — Osborn v. Osborn, 36 
Mich. 48. S. 0. — Anderson & Co. v. 
Holmes, 14 S. C. 162. 

See supra, II, D, 5, a. Note 77. 

84. Miss. — Sims v. Eoss, Strong & 
Co., 8 Smed. & M. 557. N. Y.— Bird 
V. Caritat, 2 Johns. 342, 3 Am. Dec. 
433; Bird v. Pierpont, 1 Johns. 118. 
Va.— Cannon v. Wellford, 22 Gratt. ^63 
Va.) 195. Bng.— Scott v. Franklin, 15 
Bast 428, 104 Eng. Eeprint 906. 

[a] Upon a partnership claim the 
assignee in bankruptcy of the estate 
of an individual partner cannot sue. 
Amsinck v. Bean, 22 Wall. 395, 22 L. 
ed. 801. 



[b] The assignees of partners, 
against whom separate commissions of 
bankruptcy have issued, may be joined 
in the same suit, to recover a debt 
due to the bankrupts jointly. Hancock 
V. Haywood, 3 Term Eep. 433, 100 
Eng. Reprint 661. 

85. Miss. — Sims v. Ross, Strong & 
Co., 8 Smed. & M. 557. N. Y.— Bird 
V. Pierpoint, 1 Johns. 118. Va. — Can- 
non V. Wellford, 22 Gratt. (63 Va.) 
195. Eng. — Eckhardt v. Wilson, 8 
Term R. 140, 101 Bng. Reprint 1311. 

[a] An assignment in Insolvency of 
the estate of one of the partners which 
did not extend to partnership assets 
or demands will not prevent all the 
partners from maintaining an action 
previously commenced on a debt due 
to the partnership. Cunningham v. 
Muuroe, 15 Gray (Mass.) 471. 

86. Kirkland & Co. v. Lowe, Pat- 
•tison & Co., 33 Miss. 423, 69 Am. Dec. 
355. And see Wonson v. Pew, 148 
Mass. 299, 19 N. E. 522. 

87. Ala.— McNutt V. King, 59 Ala. 
597; Lacy v. Rockett, 11 Ala. 1002. 
Ark.- Peel v. Ringgold, 6 Ark. 546. 
Miss. — Halsey v. Norton, 45 Miss. 703, 
7 Am. Rep. 745; Burrus v. Fisher, 27 
Miss. 418. N. Y. — Browning v. Mar- 
vin, 22 Hun 547; Bird v. Pierpoint, 
1 Johns. 118; Murray v. Murray, 5 
Johns. Ch. 60. Pa.— Merrill v. Tam- 
any, 3 Pa. 433. Eng.— Eckhardt v. 
Wilson, 8 Term R. 140, 101 Eng. Re- 
print 1311; Graham v. Robertson, 2 
Term R. 282, 100 Eng. Reprint 154; 
Ex parte Owen, 13 Q. B. Div. 113, 53 
L. J. Q. B. 863, 32 W. R. 811. 

[a] Neither Can Sue Alone. — Brown- 
ing V. Marvin, 22 Hun (N. T.) 547. 

[b] Amendment.— After all the evi- 
dence was before the jury, it ia not 
error for the court to refuse an amend- 

Vol. XXI 



66 



PABTNEBSHIP 



partnership demands, and be joined as defendants in suits to en- 
force Arm obligations.^® 

7. Change in the Firm Pendente Lite, — a. In General. — A 
change in the firm pending the action does not abate it as to the par- 
ties,®^ and no revival is necessary, where pending the action, one 
partner dies. In such ease the procedure is to suggest the death on 
the record and continue the action by*" or against^^ the surviving part- 



ment making an assignee in bankruptcy 
one of the parties in place of the 
bankrupt partner. Burrus v. Fisher, 
27 Miss. 418. ' 

[c] But if the proceedings in in- 
solvency are pending against one part- 
ner, an action upon a partnership de- 
mand is properly brought in the name 
of all the partners. Russell v. Cole, 
167 Mass. 6, 44 N. E 1057, 57 Am. 
St. Eep. 432. 

88. Dorn v. O'Neale, 6 Nev. 155. 

89. Ala. — Southern Ey. Co. v. Hayes, 
73 So. 945; Long v. Kansas City, M. 
& B. E. Co., 170 Ala. 635, 54 So. 62; 
Walton V. Atkinson, 165 Ala. 644, 51 
So. 826. Colo.— Eice v. Van Why, 49 
Colo. 7, 111 Pac. 599. Fla.— Bucki v. 
Cone, 25 Fla. 1, 6 So. 160. Ind. — Hess 
V. Lowery, 122 Ind. 225, 23 N. E. 156, 
17 Am. St. Rep. 355, 7 L. E. A. 90. 
Ky. — Eobinson v. Bank of Pikeville, 
108 Ky. 389, 56 S. W. 660; Dougherty 
V. Smith, Wilson & Co., 4 Mete. 279. 
Mass. — Brown v. Kellogg, 182 Mass. 
297, 65 ISr. E. 378. Mo.— Crook v. Tull, 
111 Mo. 283, 20 S. W. 8. Neb.— Dineen 
V. Lanning, 92 Neb. 545, IS'S N. W. 
759; Union Pac. Ey. Co. v. Metcalf, 
50 Neb. 452, 69 N. "W. 961. N. Y. 
Seligman v. Friedlander, 199 N. Y. 373, 
92 N. E. 1047; Latz v. Blumenthal, 50 
Misc. 407, 100 N. Y. Supp. 527, af- 
firmed in 116 App. Div. 914, 101 N. Y. 
Supp. 1128. Ohio. — Phoenix Ins. Co. 
V. Carnahan, 63 Ohio St. 258, 58 N. E. 
805. Tex. — BrouBsard v. Le Blanc 
(Tex. Civ. App.), 182 S. W. 78. W. Va. 
Euffner, Donnally & Co. v. Hewitt, 
Kerehival & Co., 14 "W. Va. 737. 

[a] Sale of one party's interest to 
another partner does not necessitate 
a change of parties. Evans Co. v. 
Beeves, 6 Tex, Civ. App. 254, 26 S. W. 
219. 

90. U. S.— Jones v. Pettingill, 245 
Fed. 269, 157 C. C. A. 461. Ala.— Long 
V. Kansas City, M. & B. E. Co., 170 
Ala. 635, 54 So. 62; Walton v. Atkin- 
son, 165 Ala. 644, 51 So. 826. Fla. 
Bucki V, Cone, 25 Fla. 1, 6 So. 160. 

Vol. XXI 



Ga. — Atlanta v. Dooly, 74 Ga. 702. 
lU. — Moore v. Terhune, 161 111. App. 
155. Ind. — Newman v. Gates (Ind. 
App.), 67 N. E. 468. Ky.— Eobinson 
V. Bank of Pikeville, 108 Ky. 389, 58 
S. W. 660; Smith v. Ferguson; 3 Mete. 
424; McCandless & Co. v. Haddeh, 9 
B. Mon. 186. Md. — Keirle v. Shriver, 
11 Gill & J. 405. Mass. — Hathaway v. 
Stone, 215 Mass. 212, 102 N. E. 461. 
Minn. — Northness v. Hillestad, 87 Minn. 
304, 91 N. W. 1112. Miss.— Sprawles 
V. Barnes, 1 Smed. & M. 629. Mo, 
State V. Stratton, 110 Mo. 426, 19 
S. "W. 803; Meriwether v. Quiney, O. 
& K. C. E. Co., 128 Mo. App. 647, 
107 S. W. 434. Mont.— Bohm v. Dun- 
phy, 1 Mont. 333. Neb.— Union Pac. 
E. Co. V. Metcalf, 50 Neb. 452, 69 
N. W. 961. N. Y.— Seligman v. Fried- 
lander, 199 N. Y. 373, 92 N. E. 1047; 
Callanan v. Keeseville, A. C. & L. 0. v 
E. Co., 48 Misc. 476, 95 N. Y. Supp. 
513. N. C— Bond v. Hilton, 51 N. C. 
180. Pa.— Stable v. Poth; 220 Pa. 335, 
69 Atl. 864. S. C— Sullivan v. Susong, 
40 S. C. 154, 18 S. E. 268. Tenn. 
Hammond v. St. John, 4 Yerg. 107. 
Tex. — Gunter v. Jarvis, 25 Tex. 581; 
Broussard v. Le Blanc (Tex Civ. 
App.), 182 S. W. 78; Shivel v. Greer 
Bros., 58 Tex. Civ. App. 115, 123 S. 
W. 207. UtaJi.— Sweetser v. Fox, 43 
ITtah 40, 134 Pac. 599, Ann. Cas. 1916C, 
620, 47 L. E. A. (N. SJ 145. W. Va. 
Euffner, Donnally & Co. v. Hewitt, 
Kerehival & Co., 14 W. Va. 737. 

[a] A nunc pro tunc entry may be 
made suggesting the death of one of 
the partners. Sullivan v. Susong, 40 
S. C. 154, 18 S. E. 268. 

[b] Death of partner after capias 
issues in the name of the firm, does 
not prevent the filing of the declara- 
tion in the name of the firm. Byrne, 
Eyan & Co. v. Schwins, 6 B. Mon. 
(Ky.) 199. 

91. Ala. — Weinstein v. Citizens' 
Bank of Lexington, 75 So. 397. Cal. 
West Coast Lumb. Co. v. Apfield, 86 
Cal. 335, 24 Pac. 993. Colo.— Eice v. 
Van Why, 49 Colo. 7, , 111 Pac. 599. 



PARTNERSHIP 



67 



ners, and the legal representatives of the deceased partner should not 
be made parties.^'' 

b. Bankruptcy or Insolvency. — ^Upon bankruptcy of a partner 
pending suit, the plaintiff may proceed to judgment against the solv- 
ent partners.^^ The assignee of the bankrupt partner need not be 
substituted in his place as defendant.^* 

8. Objections as to Parties. — a. In General. — A defect of par- 
ties apparent on the face of the pleadings is ground for demurrer,"^ 



pia. — First Nat. BanK v. Greig, 43 
ria. 412, 31 So. 239; Bucki v. Cone, 
25 Pla. 1, 6 So. 160. Ind.— Hess v. 
Lowery, 122 Ind. 225, 23 N. E. 156, 
17 Am. St. Eep. 355, 7 L. E. A. 90. 
la. — ^Bowen v. Troy Portable Mill Co., 
31 Iowa 460; Childs, Sanford & Co. 
V. Hyde & Co., 10 Iowa 294, 77 Am. 
Dec. 113. Mass. — Brown v. Kellogg, 
182 Mass. 297, 65 N. E. 378. Neb. 
Dineen v. Lanning, 92 Neb. 545, 138 
N W 759. N. Y. — Seligman v. Fried- 
lander, 199 N. Y. 373, 92 N. B. 1047; 
Xtatz V. Blumenthal, 50 Misc. 407, 100 
N. Y. Supp. 527, affirmed in 116 App. 
Div.- 914, 101 N. Y. Supp. 1128. Okla. 
White V. Dillinger, 50 Okla. 555, 151 
Pae. 194. Pa.— Stable v. Poth, 220 Pa. 
335, 69 Atl. 864; Given v. Albert, 5 
Watts & S. 333; Serrill v. Denman, 
Bright. N. P. 65. S. C. — Sullivan v. 
Susong, 40 S. C. 154, 18 S. E. 268. 
Teun. — Hammond v. St. John, 4 Yerg. 
107. Va. — Townes v. Birchett, 12 Leigh 
(39 Va.) 173. W. Va.— EufEner, Don- 
nally & Co. v. Hewitt, Kerchival & 
Co., 14 W. Va. 737. 

[a] The fact that the deceased 
partner was the only one served will 
not abate the action. Latz v. Blu- 
menthal, 50 Misc. 407, 100 N. Y. Supp. 
527. But as to service of process on 
a single partner, see infra, II, F, 2. 

[b] To substitute the survivor as 
an individual rather than as surviving 
partner is erroneous. Pennsylvania 
Fire Ins. Co. v. Carnahan, 19 Ohio Cir. 
Ct. 97, 10 Ohio Cir. Dec. 225. 

92. TT. S.— Jones v. Pettingill, 245 
Fed. 269, 157 C. C. A. 461. Ky.— Me- 
Candless & Co. v. Hadden, 9 B. Mon. 
186. Md. — Keirle v. Shriver, 11 Gill 
& J. 405. Mass. — Hathaway v. Stone, 
215 Mass. 212, 102 N. E. 461. Minn. 
Northness v. Hillestad, 87 Minn. 304, 
91 N. W. 1112. N. Y.— Latz v. Blu- 
menthal, 50 Misc. 407, 100 N. Y. Supp. 
527. Pa. — Given v. Albert, 5 Watts 
& S. 333; Serrill v. Denman, Bright. 
N. P. 65. T6X. — Dunman v. Coleman, 



59 Tex. 199. Va. — Townes v. Birchett, 
12 Leigh (39 Va.) 173. 

fa] Misjoinder of parties is ef- 
fected where legal representative is 
made party. Bond v. Hilton, 51 N. C. 
180. 

[b] Where the partner misrepre- 
sents the firm, however, or has con- 
flicting interests with the estate of 
the deceased partner, the legal rep- 
resentatives may be made parties. 
Hausliug V. Eheinfrank, 103 App. Div. 
517, 93 N. Y. Supp. 121; Callanan v. 
Keeseville A. C. & L. C. E.' Co., 48 
Misc. 476, 95 N. Y. Supp. 513. 

93. Kan. — Hogendobler v. Lyon, 12 
Kan. 276. Mont. — Lomme v. Kintzing, 
1 Mont. 290. Nev. — Tinkum v. O'Neale, 
5 Nev. 93. 

[a] But where the partnership obli- 
gation is joint (1), even insolvent 
partners should be retained as parties 
(White V. Frances, 5 Ohio Dec. [Ee- 
print] 323); (2) the remedy of sueh 
insolvent partners is to compel a stay 
of proceedings against them after 
judgment. White v. Francis, 5 Ohio 
Dec. (Eepriut) 323. 

94. Stewart v. Spaulding, 72 Cal. 
264, 13 Pae. 661. 

95. Ark. — Hicks v. Branton, 21 Ark. 
186; fiamilton v. Buxton, 6 Ark. 24. 
Cal. — Gilman & Co. v. Cosgrove, 22 
Cal. 356. Md.— Loney v. Bailey, 43 
Md. 10; Kent v. Holliday, 17 Md. 387; 
Armstrong v. Eobinson, 5 Gill & J. 
412. Mo. — Iroquois Mfg. Co. v. Annan- 
Burg Milling Co., 179 Mo. App. 87, 161 
S. W. 320. N. Y.— Green v. Lippin- 
cott, 53 How. Pr. 33; Harris v. Schultz, 
40 Barb. 315. 

See generally 6 Standard Pkoo. 897, 
and the title "Parties."- 

[a] But in tort actions, under the 
common law rule, a plea in abatement 
is necessary though the defect is ap- 
parent on the face of the pleading. 
Deal. V. Bogue, 20 Pa. 228, 57 Am. 
Dec. 702. 

Vol XXI 



68 PABTNEBSHIP 

or motion in arrest of judgment."" If not apparent on the face of the 
record the error may be reached by a plea in abatement,"^ or a mo- 
tion to dismiss,®' or, under the codes, by answer.** 

b. Waiver of Defect. — Unless properly taken advantage of an er- 
. ror as to parties will be deemed waived,^ and is cured by the verdict." 

E. Process.^ — 1. Form of Process. — The summons need not 
describe the partners as such,* but, except where the statute authorizes 
suits by and against the partnership as an entity," it should set out 



96. Hicks V. Branton, 21 Ark. 186. 

97. Ala. — SimB, Harrison & Co. v. 
Jacobson & Co., 51 Ala. 186. Ark. 
Hicks V. Branton, 21 Ark. 186; Ham- 
ilton V. . Buxton, 6 Ark. 24. Colo. 
Erskine v. Eussell, 43 Colo. 449, 96 
Pac. 249. D. C— Parker v. Heald, 29 
App. Cas. 35. 111. — Page v. Brant, 18 
111. 37. Md.— Loney v. Bailey, 43 Md. 
10; Armstrong v. Robinson, 5 Gill & 
J. 412. Nev. — Tinkum v. O'Neale, 5 
Nev. 93. N. Y. — Robertson v. Smith, 
18 Johns. 459, 9 Am. Dec. 227. Pa. 
Witmer v. Schlatter, 2 Eawle 359; Mc- 
Cahan V. Grensemer, 3 Kulp 40. Tex. 
Davis V. Willis, 47 Tex. 154. 

See generally the title "Abatement, 
Pleas of." 

[a] Where the partnership Is the 
defendant, nonjoinder must be taken 
by plea in abatement. Ark. — Hicks 
V. Branton, 21 Ark. 186; Hamilton v. 
Buxton, 6 Ark. 24. Md. — Smith v. 
Cooke, 31 Md. 174, 100 Am. Dee. 58; 
Kent V. Holliday, 17 Md. 387. Mich. 
Purvis V. Butler, 87 Mich. 248, 49 
N. W. 564. N. Y.— Le Page v. Mc- 
Crea, 1 Wend. 164, 19 Am. Dee. 469; 
Robertson v. Smith, 18 Johns. 459, 9 
Am. Dec. 227. Vt. — Goddard v. Brown, 
11 Vt. 278. 

[b] In a suit on a contract made 
■with one partner, and in his name, it 
is not ground for abatement that the 
other partner is not joined. Sylvester 
V. Smith, ;9 Mass. 119; Farweill v. 
Davis, 66 Barb. (N. Y.) 73; Clark 
V. Holmes, 3 Johns. (N. Y.) 148. 

[e] The ostensible partner, if sued 
alone, cannot plead in abatement that 
he has a dormant partner. Cammack 
V. Johnson, 2 N. J. Eq. 163. 

As to answer In abatement of non- 
joinder of partner of defendants, see 
9 Standard Proc. 914. 

98. Hicks V. Branton, 21 Ark. 186; 
Richardson v. Smith & Co., 21 Pla. 
336. 

99. Cal. — Harrison v. McCormick, 69 
Cal. 616, 11 Pae. 456. Minn.— Sand- 
wich Mfg. Co. V. Herriott, 37 Minn. 

Vol. XXI 



214, 33 N. W. 782. Mont.— Parehen 
V. Peck, 2 Mont. 567. 

[a] A tort action by one member, 
where the tort results in injury to 
firm, is subject to plea in abatement 
for nonjoinder of the other partners. 
Ind. Ter. — Carlisle v. MoAlester, 3 Ind. 
Ter. 164, 53 S. W. 531. N. H.— True 
V. Congdon, 44 N. H. 48. Pa. — Deal 
P. Bogue, 20 Pa. 228, 57 Am. Dee. 
702. 

1. Ala. — Conn ». Sellers, 73 So. 961; 
Simmons v. Titche, 102 Ala. 317, 14 
So. 786; Foreman v. Weil Bros., 98 
Ala. 495, 12 So. 815; Moore v. Watts, 
81 Ala. 261, 2 So. 278. Colo.— Simon- 
ton V. Rohm, 14 Colo. 51, 23 Pae. 86. 
Ga.— De Leon v. Heller, 77 Ga. 740, 
743. HI. — Robinson v. Magarity, 28 
111. 423, Ind. Ter.— Carlisle v. Mo- 
Alester, 3 Ind. Ter. 164, 53 S. W. 531. 
Mo. — Mitchell v. Railton, 45 Mo. App. 
273. Ohio. — ^Brownson v. Metcalfe & 
Co, 1 Handy 188. 

See generally the title "Parties." 

2. Seitz & Co. V. Buffum & Co., 14 
Pa. 69. 

3. See the title "Process." 

4. Tarlton v. Herbert, 4 Ala. 359. 

5. IT. S. — Empire Rice Mill Co. v. 
Neumond, 199 Fed. 800. Fla. — Thomas 
V. Nathan, 65 Fla. 386, 62 So. 206. 
Ga. — Denton Bros. v. Hannah, 12 Ga. 
App. 494, 77 S. E. 672; Ferry & Co. 
V. Mattox, 2 Ga. App. 104, 58 S. B. 
291. Kan. — Neiswanger v. Ord, 81 Kan. 
63, 105 Pac. 17, 29 L. R. A. (N. S.) 
287. Mich.— Eickman v. Eickman, 180 
Mich. 224, 146 N. W. 609, Ann. Cas. 
1915C, 1237. N. D.— Goldstein v. Fox 
Sons Co., 22 N. D. 636, 135 N. W. 
180, 40 L. R. A. (N. S.) 566. N. Y. 
LutJi V. Kalmus, 115 N. Y. Supp. 230. 
Tenn. — Blue Grass Canning Co. v. 
Wardman, 103 Tenn. 179, 52 S. W. 
137. Tex. — Slaughter v. American Bap- 
tist Publication Society (Tex. Civ. 
App.), 150 S. W. 224. TItall.— Bingham 
Coal & Lumber Co. i'. Blom, 43 Utah 
584, 137 Pae. 630. 



PABTNEB8HIP 



69 



the names of the partners.' 

2. Service.^ — Service of process in actions against partnerships 
is largely regulated by statute. The rule that notice to or service 
upon one partner, in actions against the partners in their individual 
names, does not confer jurisdiction over the other partners so as to 
bind them in any way^ has been generally supplanted by statutory 
provisions authorizing service upon a partnership by leaving a copy 
of the process at the usual place of business of the firm,^ or by serving 
any member of the partnership,^" but such service does not authorize 



6. Ala. — Tarlton v. Herbert, 4 Ala. 
359. ni.— Day v. Cushman, 2 111. 475. 
Md.— Mitchell v. Dall, 2 Har. & G. 159. 
Mich.— Smith v. Canfield, 8 Mich. 493. 
Mo. — Johnson. Mach. Co. v. Watson, 
57 Mo. App. 629. Okla. — Holmes v. 
Alexander, 152 Pac. 819. Ore.— Dun- 
ham V. Shindler, 17 Ore. 256, 20 Pae. 
326. 

[a] Where the petition or declara- 
tion shows who the memhers are, a fail- 
ure of the writ properly to do so 
will not be fatal. iLy. — Keathley v. 
Stump, 147 Ky. 406, 144 S. W. 87; Bry- 
ant V. Cheek, 19 Ky. L. Eep. 749, 41 
S. W. 776. Mich.— Barber v. Smith, 
41 Mich. 138, 1 N. W. 992.. Tex.— Put- 
man V. Wheeler, 65 Tex. 522; Guimond 
V. Nast, 44 Tex. 114. 

7. See the title ' ' Service of Process 
and Papers." 

8. U. S.— Hall V. Lanning, 91 U. S. 
160, 23 L. ed. 271. Ala.— Ladiga Saw- 
Mill Co. V. Smith, 78 Ala. 108; Shap- 
ard V. Lightfoot, 56 Ala. 506. Cal. 
Feder v. Epstein, 69 Cal. 456, 10 Pac. 
785; Davidson v. Knox, 67 Cal. 143, 
7 Pac. 413. Fla. — ^First National Bank 
V. Greig, 43 Fla. 412, 31 So. 239. Ga. 
Clayton v. Eoberts, 84 Ga. 149, 10 S. E. 
621; Taylor v. Folder, 3 Ga. A-pp. 106, 
59 S. E. 328. lU.— Hibbard v. Hol- 
loway, 13 111. App. 101. la. — Har- 
ford, Thayer & Co. v. Street, 46 Iowa 
594; Weaver v. Carpenter, ^2 Iowa 343. 
Ky. — Heavrin v. Lack Malleable Iron 
Co., 153 Ky. 329, 155 S. W. 729; Bal- 
lou V. Skidmore, 113 S. W. 441, after 
dissolution. La. — Le Blanc v. Marsou- 
det, •25 La. Ann. 464; Grieff v. Kirk 
& Co., 15 La. Ann. 320; Seott v. 
Bogart, 14 La. Ann. 261. Miss. — Fuqua 
17. Tindall, 11 Smed. & M. 465; Demoss 
V. Brewster, 4 Smed. & M. 661; Pitt- 
man V. Planters' Bank, 1 How. 527. 
Mo. — Maelay v. Freeman, 48 Mo. 234; 
Bascom v. Young, 7 Mo. 1. Neb. — Han- 
na V. Emerson, 45 Neb. 708, 64 N. W. 
229; Herron v. Cole Bros., 25 Neb. 692, 



41 N. W. 765; Winters v. Means, 25 
Neb. 241, 41 N. W. 157, 13 Am. St. 
Eep. 489. N. Y.— Liebert v. Eeiss, 174 
App. Div. 308, 160 N. Y. Supp. 535. 
Pa.— Walsh V. Kirby, 228 Pa. 194, 77 
Atl. 452; Cover v. Brown, Sutter & 
Co., 7 Pa. Dist. 19. Vt.— People's 
Nat. Bank v. Hall, 76 Vt. 280, 56 Atl. 
1012. Wash.— McCoy v. Bell, 1 Wash. 
504, 20 Pac. 595. W. Va.— Ferguson 
V. Millender, 32 W. Va. 30, 9 S. E. 
38; Carlon's Admr. v. EufEner, 12 W. 
Va. 297. Eng. — Moulston v. Wire, 1 
Dowl. & L. 527. 

9. U. S. — Irvine v. Church, 227 
Fed. 252 (Ohio); United States v. 
American Bell Tel. Co., 29 Fed. 17. 
La.^^Wolf V. New Orleans Tailor-Made 
Pants Co., 52 La. Ann. 1357, 27 So. 
893. Neb. — Hanna v. Emerson, 45 
Neb. 708, 64 N. W. 229; Herron v. 
Cole Bros., 25 Neb. 692, 41 N. W. 765; 
Eosenbaum v. Hayden, 22 Neb. 744, 
36 N. W. 147. Ohio.— Smith v. Hoover, 
39 Ohio St. 249; Shafer v. Hockheimer, 
36 Ohio St. 215; Whitman v. Keith, 18 
Ohio St. 134. Eng.— Pollexfen v. Sib- 
son, L. E. 16 Q. B. Div. 792, where 
partnership' is suedj in its firm name. 

[a] Service upon an agent or clerk, 
is in the absence of such a statute, 
insufficient. TT. S. — In re Grossmayer, 
177 U. S. 48, 20 Sup. Ct. 535, 44 L. 
ed. 665. Mo.— Huffman v. Sisk, 62 
Mo. App. 398, service on manager. 
N. Y.— Sherman v. Oelsner, 135 N. Y. 
Supp. 592. Wash. — Coughlin v. Pin- 
kerton, 41 Wash. 500, 84 Pac. 14. 

10. V. S. — Sugg V. Thornton, 132 
V. S. 524, 10 Sup. Ct. 163, 33 L. ed. 
447 (Texas); D'Arcy v. Ketohum, 11 
How. 165, 13 L. ed. 648, New York. 
Ala. — Eatchford v. Covington County 
Stock Co., 172 Ala. 461, 55 So. 806; 
Ladiga Saw-Mill Co. v. Smith, 78 Ala. 
108 (partnership sued in firm name) ; 
Yarbrough & Co. v. Bush & Co., 69 Ala. 
170. C^. — Booth V. Gamble-Eobinson 
Commission Co., 139 Cal. 175,^ 72 Pac 

Vol. XXI 



70 



PABTNEBSHIP 



a personal judgment against the partners." In equity, a service 
upon one of the partners, where the other has left the jurisdiction 
or cannot be found, is sufficient to support a decree against the firm." 
Non-resident Partners. -Where all the members of a partnership 
are non-residents, service of process may be made upon an agent of 



908. Colo. — ^Barnes v. Colorado Springs 
& C. C. D. Ry. Co., 42 Colo. 461, 94 
Pac. 570; Ellsberry v. Block, 28 Colo. 
477, 65 Pac. 629. Ga. — Cunningham v. 
Woodbridge, 76 Ga. 302; Denton Bros. 
V. Hannah, 12 Ga. App. 494, 77 S. E. 
672; Warren Brick Co. v. Lagarde 
Lime & Stone Co., 12 Ga. App. 58, 
76 S. E. 761; Ferry & Co. v. Mattox, 
2 Ga. App. 104, 58 S. Ew 291. la. 
Weaver v. Carpenter, 42 Iowa 343; 
Gregory, Tilton & Co. v. Harmon, 10 
Iowa 445; Sanders v. Bentley, 8 Iowa 
516. La. — Levy v. Rich, 106 La. 243, 
30 So. 377; Wolf v. New Orleans Tailor- 
Made Pants Co., 52 La. Ann. 1357, 
27 So. 893 (commercial partnership); 
Anderson v. Arnette, 27 La. Ann. 237; 
Kearney & Co. v. Fenner & Co., 14 
La. Ann. 870, commercial partnership. 
Me. — Cooper v. Bailey, 52 Me. 230. 
Mass. — Parker v. Danforth, 16 Mass. 
299, where some of the partners are 
nonresidents. Mich. — Smith v. Kun- 
nells, 94 Mich. 617, 54 N. W. 375; 
Hubbardston Lumb. Co. v. Covert, 35 
Mich. 254. Minn. — Dimond v. Min- 
nesota Sav. Bank, 70 Minn. 298, 73 
N. W. 182. Mo.— Huffman v. Sisk, 62 
Mo. App. 398. Neb.— Stelling v. Ped- 
dicord, 78 'Neb. 779, 111 N. W. 793; 
Hanna v. Emerson, ,45 Neb. 708, 64 N. 
W. 229; Herron v. Cole Bros., 25 Neb. 
692, 41 N. W. 765. Nev.— Flannery 
V. Anderson, 4 Nev. 437; Whitmore 
V. Shiveriek, 3 Nev. 288. N. M. 
Good V. Bed Eiver Valley Co., 12 N. 
M. 245, 78 Pac. 46; LewinBon v. First 
Nat. Bank, 11 N. M. 510, 70 Pac. 
567. N. Y. — Ludwig v. Lazarus, 10 
App. Div. 62, 41 N. Y. S'upp. 773, 75 
N. Y. St. 1169; Feldman v. Siegel, 43 
Misc. 392, 87 N. Y. Supp. 538; Ma- 
neely v. Mayers, 43 Misc. 380, 87 N. 
Y. Supp. 471. Okla. — Symns Grocer 
Co. V. Burnham, 6 Okla. 618, 52 Pac. 
918. Pa.— Walsh v. Kirby, 228 Pa. 
194, 77 Atl. 452. R. I.— Nathanson 
V. Spitz, 19 E. I. 70, 31 Atl. 690. S. C. 
Pierce 1). Varn, Byrd & Co., 76 S. C. 
359, 57 S. E. 184; Whitfield v. Hovey, 
30 S. C. 117, 8 S. E. 840. Tex.- Frank 
V. Tatum, 87 Tex. 204, 25 S. W. 409; 
Sanger Bros. v. Overmier, 64 Tex. 57; 

Vol. XXI 



Hedges v. Armistead, 60 Tex. 276; 
Burnett v. Sullivan, 58 Tex. 535; Gui- 
mon'd V. Nast, 44 Tex. 114; Alexander 
V. Stern, 41 Tex. 193. Wis.— Young 
V. Krueger, 92 Wis. 361, 66 N. W. 
355. Eng. — Pollexfen v. Sibson, L. E. 
16 Q. B. Div. 792; Kitchin v. Wilson, 
4 C. B. (N. S.) 483, 93 E. C. L. 483, 
140 Eng. Eeprint 1179, where affidavit 
shows that absent partner is evading 
service. 

[a] Service after dissolution upon 
one member of the dissolved firm is 
a valid service authorizing a judgment 
against the late firm. Ala. — Faver v. 
Briggs, 18 Ala. 478; Beal v. Snedicor, 

8 Port. 523; Duncan v. Tombeckbee 
Bank, 4 Port. 181. Fla. — Thomas v. 
Nathan, 65 Fla. 386, 62 So. 206. la. 
Harford, Thayer & Co. v. Streetj 46 
Iowa 594. Me. — Cooper v. Bailey, 52 
Me. 230. Tex. — Texas, etc. Ey. Co. v. 
McCaughey, 62 Tex. 271. But see Levy 
V. Eich, 106 La. 243, 30 So. 377. 

11. Ala. — Eatehf ord v. Covington 
County Stock Co., 172 Ala. 461, 55 
So. 806; Comer v. Eeid, 93 Ala. 391, 

9 So. 620; Ladiga Saw-Mill Co. v. 
Smith, 78 Ala. 108; Watts v. Eice, 75 
Ala. 289; Yarbrough & Co. v. Bush 
& Co., 69 Ala. 170. Colo. — Erskine v. 
Russell, 43 Colo. 449, 96 Pac. 249. 
N. J. — Stehr v. Albermann, 49 N. J. 
L. 633, 10 Atl. 547. N. Y.— Brandagee 
V. Cleary, 152 N. Y. SuppL 628. Okla. 
Heaton v. Schaeffer, 34 Okla. 631, 126 
Pac. 797, 43 L. E. A. (N. S.) 540; 
Sayre Commission Co. v. Keen, 26 Okla. 
794, 110 Pac. 775. 

A3 to what name partnership may 
sue or be sued in, see supra, II, D. 

12. Bank of Hamilton v. Blakeslee, 
9 Ont. Pr. (Can.) 130; Leese v. Mar- 
tin, L. R. 13 Eq. 77;, Kinder v. Forbes, 
1 Beav. 503, 48 Eng. Reprint 1277; 
Darwent v. Walton, 2 Atk. 510, 26 Eng. 
Reprint 707; Coles v. Gurney, 1 Madd. 
187, 56 Eng. Reprint 70 (where one 
partner is abroad, the subpoena against 
him, was, on motion, permitted to be 
served on the resident partner) ; Hen- 
derson V. Campbell, 13 Wkly. Rep. 
704. 



PABTNEBSHIP 



71 



such partnership in the county of the place of business,^' and service 
upon a resident partner is, where the obligation is joint, sufficient to 
sustain a judgment against the partnership, although a non-resident 
partner is not served.^* Service by publication as to a non-resident 
partner confers no jurisdiction over him, where the 'firm has no prop- 
erty subject to attachment within the state ;^^ but such a judgment has 
no operation outside the state as against a partner not served and 
who does not appear.^" 

3. Return.^' — "Where the action is against the partnership and 
service is made on one of the members thereof, the return need not 
show that such member was employed in the general management 
of the business,^^ but where the service is made upon an agent, it 
should appear that he was so employed.^^ A return of not found is 
not a prerequisite to bind the interest of a partner not served as to 
the partnership property in an action against the copartners.^" 

4. Amendments. — The process may be amended to correct ir- 
regularities therein,^^ but not to remedy errors of substance.^^ 

F. Appearance. — 1. In General.^' — One partner may enter the 
appearance of the partnership,^* except perhaps in jurisdictions re- 



13. Fox V. Blue-Grass Grocery Co., 
22 Ky. L. Eep. 1695, 61 S. W. 265, 60 
S. W. 414. 

[a] Non-residence of the partners 
in the county where the suit is brought 
is sufficient to permit service to be 
made on their agent in such county. 
Watson V. Coon, 247 111. 414, 93 N. E. 
289 (affirming 155 HI. App. 158); 
Kamp V. Bartlett, 164 111. App. 338. 

14. Sugg V. Thornton, 132 IT. S. 524, 
10 Sup. Ct. 163, 33 L. ed. 447; Whit- 
field V. Hovey, 30 S. B. 117, 8 S. E. 
840. 

[a] Service made upon a member 
of a foreign partnership who hap- 
pened to be within the jurisdiction 
is a good service upon such foreign 
partnership. Pollexfen v. Sibson, L. E. 

16 Q. B. Div. 792. 

15. People's ISTat. Bank v. Hall, 76 
Vt. 280, 56 Atl. 1012. 

16. U. S. — Goldey v. Morning News, 
156 U. S. 518, 15 Sup. Ct. 559, 39 
L. ed. 517 (judgment has no effect in 
a court of the United States); Hall 
V. Lanning, 91 U. S.- 160, 23 L. ed. 
271; D'Arcy v. Ketchum, 11 How. 165, 
13 L. ed. 648. Ga. — Conley v. Chap- 
man, 74 Ga. 709; Clein v. Diamond, 

17 Ga. App. 652, 87 S. E. 1101. Mass. 
Phelps V. Brewer, 9 Cush. 390, 57 
Am. Dec. 56. Miss. — ^Persons v. Old- 
field, 101 Miss. 110, 57 So. 417. N. Y. 
Hoffman v. Wight, 1 App. Div. 514, 
37 N. T. Supp. 262, 72 N. T. St. 588. 



[a] An action cannot be nuiintained 
on such judgment outside of the state 
of its rendition against the partner 
not served. D'Arcy v. Ketchum, 11 
How. (U. S.) 165,-13 L. ed. 648; 
Hoffman v. Wight, 1 App. Div. 514, 
37 N. Y. Supp. 262, 72 N. Y. St. 
588. See generally 15 Standard Peoc. 
656. 

17. See generally the title "Ee- 
tuma." 

18. Walker v. Clark, 8 Iowa 474. 

19. Walker v. Clark, 8 Iowa 474. 

20. Priutup Bros. & Co. v. Turner, 
65 Ga. 71. 

21. Goldstein v. Pox Sons Co., 22 
iSr. D. 636, 135 N. W. 180, 40 L. E. 
A. (N. S.) 566, entity changed from 
corporation to partnership. See more 
fully the title "Process." 

22. Maritime Bank v. Eand & Son, 
24 Conn. 9. 

[a] A change in the parties cannot 
be effected by amendment. Maritime 
Bank v. Eand & Son, 24 Conn. 9. 

23. See the titles "Appearances;" 
"Jurisdiction." 

24. Oatis V. Brown, 59 Ga. 711; 
State V. Cloudt (Tex. Civ. App.), 84 
S. W. 415. 

[a] But after dissolution of the 
firm, the acknowledgment, by one 
partner, in the name of the firm, of 
the service of process, will not author- 
ize a joint judgment against the part- 
ners. De Mott V. Swaim's Admr., 5 
Stew. & P. (Ala.) 293. 

Vol. XXI 



72 



PABTNEB8HIP 



quiring service of process on all the partners.^^ Appearance by one 
partner,^" or by the partnership,^' will not bind personally those not 
served and who do not appear. 

2. Waiver of Defects. — The general rule that defects in the pro- 
cess or service thereof are waived by a general appearance,"* applies 
in actions against a partnership."* 

G. Pleading. — 1. Declaration, Complaint or Petition. — a. 
Form of: — It should appear from the title or caption whether the 
action is by or against the firm or the individuals alone.'" If allega- 
tions of partnership are necessary, they should be made in the body of 
the pleading,'^ and not merely in the caption or title.'" 

b. Contents.- (I.) Existence of Faxtueirslilp. — (A.) Necessity of Alleging. 
An allegation of partnership between plaintiffs is necessary where 
their right jointly to maintain the suit depends upon the existence 



25. Heavrin v. Lack Malleable Iron 
Co., 153 Ky. 329, 155 S. W. 729. But 
see dictum in Southard v. Steele, 3 
Men. (Ky.) 435. 

26. U. S.— Hall V. Lanning, 91 U. S. 
160, 23 L. ed. 271; Atchison Sav. Bank 
V. Templar, 26 Fed. 580. Ala.— De 
Mott V. Swaim's Admx., 5 Stew. & 
P. 293. Mass. — Phelps v. Brewer, 9 
Gush. 390, 57 Am. Dec. 56, non- 
resident. Mo. — Weldon v. Fisher, 194 
Mo. App. 573, 186 S. W. 1153, non- 
resident. S. C. — Loomis & Co. v. 
Pearson, Harp. L. 470; Haslet v. 
Street, 2 McCord 310, 13 Am. Dec. 
724. Va. — ^Bowler v. Huston, 30 Gratt. 
(71 Va.) 266, 32 Am. Rep. 673. 

27. Ga. — ^Fincher v. Hanson, 12 Ga. 
App. 608, 77 S. E. 1068. la.— Lansing 
V. Bever Land Co.,' 158 Iowa 693, 138 
N. W. 833. Kan. — Wheatley v. Tutt, 
4 Kan. 240. Mass. — Phelps v. Brewer, 
9 Cush. 390, 57 Am. Dec. 56. Okla. 
Holmes v. Alexander, 152 Pac. 819. 

But Bee Marks v. Fordyce, 5 Ohio 
Dec. (Eeprint) 81. 

28. See generally 2 Standard Peoc. 
536; 17 Standard Pboc. 903. 

29. Ala. — ^Bowin & Co. v. Suther- 
lin, 44 Ala. 278. Kan. — Anglo-American 
P. & P. Co. V. Turner Casing Co., 34 
Kan. 340, 8 P.ae. 403. Tenn.— Blue 
Grass Can. Co. v. Wardman, 103 Tenn. 
179, 52 S. W. 137. 

30. Maclay Co. v. Meads, 14 Cal. 
App. 363, 112 Pac. 195, 113 Pac. 
364. 

[a] For complaints held to be 
against the individuals and not the firm, 
see the following cases: Cal. — Lee v 
Orr, 70 Cal. 398, 11 Pac. 745; Feder v 
Epstein, 69 Cal. 456, 10 Pac. 785. 

Vol. XXI 



Colo. — Fryer v. Breeze, 16 Colo. 323, 
26 Pac. 817. Neb.— Wigton v. Smith, 
57 Neb. 299, 77 N. W. 772; King v. 
Bell, 13 Neb. 409, 14 N. W. 141. N. M. 
Good V. Bed Eiver Valley Co., 12 
N. M. 245, 78 Pac. 46; Curran v. Ken- 
dall Boot & Shoe Co., 8 N. M. 417, 
45 Pac. 1120. N. C— Palin v. Small, 
63 N. C. 484. Utah.— Gutheil v. Gil- 
mer, 27 Utah 496, 76 Pac. 628. 

[b] A petition wherein the defend- 
ants are described as M. H. S. and 
E. H. S., "partners doing business as 
S. Bros.," is not an action against the 
firm named, but will sustain a personal 
judgment against the defendants there- 
in named. First Nat. Bank v. Slo'man, 
42 Neb. 350, 60 N. W. 589, 47 Am. 
St. Rep. 707. 

31. Millhiser v. Holleyman, 37 S. C 
572, 16 S. E. 688; BischofE & Co. v. 
Blease, 20 S. C. 460. 

[a] Partnership alleged in the body 
of the complaint is sufficient although 
the caption of the complaint does not 
designate the plaintiffs as partners. 
Wise V. Williams, 72 Cal. 544, 14 Pac. 
204. Compare McCord v. Scale, 56 Cal. 
262; First Nat. Bank v. Hattenbaeh, 
13 S. D. 365, 83 N. W. 421; Van Brunt 
& Davis Co. V. Harrigan, 8 S. D. 96 
65 N. W. 421. 

32. Millhiser «, Holleyman, 37 S. C 
572, 16 S. B. 688; Bisehoff & Co v 
Blease, 20 S. C. 460. 

[a] But as against a general de- 
murrer it is sufficient if the caption 
or_ title recites the fact of partner- 
ship. Atchison, etc. Co. v. Carrow, 18 
Ariz. 92, 156 Pac. 965; Jaeger v. Hart- 
man, 13 Minn. 55. Contra, Bisehoff & 
Co. V. Blease, 20 S. C. 460. 



PABTNEBSHIP 



73 



of a partnership between them,'^ but not otherwise.'* 

In actions against partners upon a partnership obligation, it is not nec- 
essary to allege a partnership between the defendants, a joint liability 
being alleged,'^ nor where the liability of the partners is joint and 
several, is such allegation necessary.'* Where the plaintiff is suing 
on a contract which he claims was made by one of the defendants 
as a partner of the others, he must allege the existence of the partner- 
ship as to such transaction.'' 



33. Ark. — Keith v. Pratt, 5 Ark. 
661. Cal.— Wise v. Williams, 72 Cal. 
544, 14 Pac. 204; Hallock v. Jaudin, 
34 Cal. 167. HI.— Wilcox v. Woods, 
4 m. 51. Ind. — Mcintosh v, Zaring, 
150 Ind. 301, 49 N. E. 164; Hughes 
t'. Walker, Carter & Co., 4. Blackf. 50; 
Anderson v. Evansville Brewing Assn., 
49 Ind. App. 403, 97 N". E. 445. Minn. 
Boosalis V. Stevenson, 62 Minn. 193, 
64 N. W. 380; Irvine V. Myers & Co., 
4 Minn. 229; Poerster v. Kirkpatrick, 

2 Minn. 210. N. Y. — ^Loper v. Welch, 

3 Duer 644. Ore. — Clark v. Wick, 25 
Ore. 446, 36 Pac. 165. S. C— Mill- 
hiser v. HoUeyman, 37 S. C. 572, 16 
S. E. 688; Walter v. Godshall, 32 S. C. 
187, 10 S. E. 951; Bischoff & Co. v. 
Blease, 20 S. C. 460; Martin v. Kelly, 
Cheves 215. 

[a] That at the time of bringing 
suit, they were partners, need not be 
averred. Klemik v. Henricksen Jew- 
elry Co., 122 Minn. 380, 142 N. W. 
871. 

34. Cal.— Lee v. Orr, 70 Cal. 398, 
11 Pac. 745. Minn. — Hayward v. 
Grant, 13 Minn. 165, 97 Am. Dee. 228; 
Jaeger v. Hartman, 13 Minn. 55. 
N. J.— Wood V. Fithian, 24 N. J. L. 
33, 838. N". Y.— Loper v. Welch, 3 
Duer 644. Ore. — Clark v. Wick, 25 
Ore. 446, 36 Pac. 165. 

See also Cowan, MeClung & Co. v. 
Baird, 77 N. C. 201, demurrer held 
frivolous. 

[a] In a suit on a written Instru- 
ment where the statute permits a 
party to sue by the same name by 
which he is designated in such in- 
strument, it is unnecessary to allege 
partnership capacity. Wendall & Os- 
borne & Co., 63 Iowa 99, 18 N. W. 
709; Harris Mfg. Co. v. Marsh, 49 
Iowa 11. 

35. IT. S.— Davis v. Abbott, 2 Mc- 
Lean 29, 7 Fed. Cas. No. 3,622. Ala.. 
Austin «. Beall, 167 Ala. 426, 52 So. 
657, Ann. Cas. 1912A, 510; Jemison 
V. Dearing's Exr., 41 Ala. 283. Ark. 



Bumpass «. Taggart, 26 Ark. 398, 7 
Am. Eep. 623; Kent l). Wells, 21 Ark. 
411; Swinney v. Burnside & Co., 17 
Ark. 38. Cal.— Pike v. Zadig, 171 Cal. 
273, 152 Pac. 923; Hunter v. Martin, 
57 Cal. 365. Fla.— Bay v. Pollock, 56 
Fla. 530, 47 So. 940. Ind.— Pollock v. 
Glazier, 20 Ind. 262; Ensminger v. Mar- 
vin, 5 Blackf. 210. IMich. — Danaher 
V. Hitchcock, 34 Mich. 516; Pegg v. 
Bidleman, 5 Mich. 26. Minn. — Keene 
V. Masterman, 66 Minn. 72, 68 N. W. 
7.71; Fetz v. Clark, 7 Minn. 217. Miss. 
Nutt V. Hunt, 4 Smed. & M. 702. Mo. 
Fellows V. Jernigan; 68 Mo. 434; Stix 
V. Mathews, 63 Mo. 371; Gates v. Wat- 
son, 54 Mo. 585; Smith v. Cain, 180 
Mo. App. 457, 166 S. W. 653, question 
of partnership is one of evidence. 
N. H.— Maynard v. Fellows, 43 N. H. 
255. N. Y.— Ageloff v. Lakin, 115 N. 
Y. Supp. 1082; Wolff V. Strahl, 54 
Hun 636, 7 N. Y. Supp. 593, 27 N. Y. 
St. 7, 3 Silvernail 552; Mack v. Spen- 
cer, 4 Wend. 411; Singleton ■». Thorn- 
ton, 45 Hun 589, 9 N. Y. St. 600. 
Ore. — Wallace v. Baisley, 22 Ore. 572, 
30 Pac. 432. S. D.— First Nat. Bank 
V. Hattenbach, 13 S. D. 365, 83 N. W. 
421; Van Brunt & Davis Co. V. Har- 
rigan, 8 S. D. 96, 65 N. W. 421. Vt. 
Hawley v. Hurd, 56 Vt. 617. 

36. See infra, this note. 

[a] Tort Actions. — Ind. — Alexan- 
dria Min. & E. Co. V. Painter, 1 Ind. 
App. 587, 28 N. E. 113. Me.— Head 
V. Goodwin, 37 Me. 181. S. C. — Baker 
V. Hornick, 51 S. C. 313, 28 S. E. 
941. 

37. III.— Petrie v. Newell, 13 HI. 
647. la. — McCloskey v. Strickland, 7 
Iowa 259. Ky. — Reid v. Lyttle, 150 
Ky. 304, 150 S. W. 357. Neb.— Stone 
V. Neeley, 42 Neb. 567, 60 N. W. 965. 
S. C— Harle v. Morgan, 29 S. C. 258, 
7 S. E. 487. S. D.— Van Brunt & 
Davis Co. V. Harrigan, 8 S. D. 96, 65 
N. W. 421. Tex.— Laing v. Craig, 14 
Tex. Civ. App. 134, 36 S. W. 142; 
Mexican Nat. E. Co. v. Savage (Tex. 
Civ. App.), 41 S. W. 663. Va.— Gar- 

Vol. XXI 



n 



PABTNEB8HIP 



(B.) SuTPiciENCY OP Allegation. —Though contrary to the rule gen- 
erally laid down in actions between partners where partnership is a 
material fact,''* it is held in actions by and against partners that the 
fact of partnership may be alleged generally,^^ or the pleader may, 
of course, set out facts and circumstances from which the existence 
of the relation follows as a matter of law.*" 

(II.) Names of Partners. —Not only must the pleader aver, in cer- 
tain cases, the existence of a partnership, but he must further set 
forth the names of the individuals composing it,*^ but in jurisdictions 



land , V. Davidson, 3 Munf. (17 Va.) 
189. 

[a] Where a dormant partner is 
made a party, the plaintiff need not 
allege that he knew such defendant 
was a partner at the time the con- 
tract was entered into. Allen & Co. 
V. Davids, 70 S. C. 260, 49 S. B. 846. 

38. See supra, I, C, 6, a, (I). 

39. Ga. — Mims v. Brook & Co., 3 
Ga. App. 247, 59 S. E. 711. Mo.— See 
Meeks v. Clear Jack Min. Co., 141 
Mo. App. 648, 124 S. W. 1084. S. C. 
Walter v. Godshall, 32 S. C. 187, 10 
S. E. 951. Wis. — Howard v. Boorman, 
17 Wis. 459. 

[a] In. the absence of a motion to 
ma^e specific and certain an averment 
of partnership is suflficient which states 
that "said plaintiffs, for several years 
last past, have been and are now co- 
partners, doing business under the firm 
name and style of A. Pfister & Co." 
Pfister V. Wade, 69 Cal. 133, 10 Pac. 
369. 

[b] That partnerships arising by- 
estoppel must, however, b© specially 
pleaded, see Hamner v. Barker (Tex. 
Civ. App.), 144 S. W. 1180. But see 
Gornhauser & Co. v. Roberts, 75 Wis. 
554, 44 N. W. 744. 

[c] The statute may authorize the 
alleging of partnership generally or as 
a legal conclusion. Ware v. Deffert, 
151 iowa 17, 130 N. W. 793; Sweet, 
Dempster & Co. v. Ervin & Co., 54 Iowa 
101, 6 N. W. 156. 

[d] That plaintiff is a joint stock 
company is sufficient allegation. Chap- 
man V. Barney, 129 V. S. 677, 9 Sup. 
Ct. 426, 32 L. ed. 800. Contra, Coody 
V. Shawver (Tex. Civ. App.), 161 S. 
W. 935. 

[e] A distinct and formal allega- 
tion of partnership is not necessary. 
Thus a pleading entitled in the name 
of certain parties plaintiffs as part- 
ners, and which describes them as part- 

Vol. XXI 



ners is sufficient. Campbell v. Blanke, 
13 Kan. 62. 

40. See Kessler v. First Nat. Bank 
of Yoakum, 21 Tex. Civ. App. 98, 51 
S. W. 62, and 5 Standard Proc. 205, 
208, and infra, this note. 

[a] Setting out a contract signed 
in the firm name of plaintiffs is not 
alone sufficient to show a partnership. 
Mcintosh V. Zaring, 150 Ind. 301, 49 
N. E. 164. 

[b] An averment that plaintiffs ara 
merchants, engaged in the sale of gen- 
eral merchandise, is not sufficient to 
show a partnership interest. Ander- 
son V. Evansville Brewing Assn., 49 
Ind. App. 403, 97 N. E. 445. 

[c] Sharing Profits and Losses. 
An allegation that two persons con- 
ducted a business under the name Wan- 
gemann, and shared in the profits and 
losses, is insufficient in the absence of 
a general averment of partnership or 
averment of agreement of partnership., 
Kessler v. First Nat. Bank of Yoakum, 
21 Tex. Civ. App. 98, 51 S. W. 162. 

41. Ga. — Bracken v. Dillon & Sons, 
64 Ga. 243, 37 Am. Eep. 70. La. 
Wolf V. New Orleans Tailor-Made 
Pants Co., 52 La. Ann. 1357, 27 So. 
893. Md.— Hirsh v. Thurber & Co., 54 
Md. 210. N. C— Brewer & Co. v. 
Abernathy, Lyerly & Co., 159 N. C. 
283, 74 S. E. 1025; Palin v. Small, 63 
N. C. 484. S. C— Walter v. Godshall. 
32 S. C. 187, 10 S. E. 951. 

[a] If the title contains the names, 
it is not necessary to repeat them in 
the body of the pleading. Walter v. 
Godshall, 32 S. C. 187, 10 S. E. 951. 

[b] Objection on this ground is 
waived (1) unless raised by written ' 
demurrer or answer. Brewer & Co. v. 
Abernathy, Lyerly & Co., 159 N.' C. 
283, 74 S. E. 1025. (2) A demurrer 
to the evidence is not a sufficient or 
timely method of raising the objec- 
tion that the names of the partners 
were not alleged. Brewer & Co. v. 



PARTNERSHIP 



75 



permitting suits by and against partnerships in the firm name, the 
rule is otherwise.*^ 

(III.) Nature and Purpose of Partnership. —The nature and purpose 
of the partnership need not be averred,*' except that in certain eases 
such allegations may be material to the • cause of action,** or to the 
right to sue or be sued in the firm name.*" 

(IV.) Allegation of Piling Certificate of Fictitious Name. —Where the 
filing of a certificate as to the names of partners doing business under 
a fictitious name, is required,*^ an allegation of compliance with the 
statute is not necessary, in a suit by,*^ or against,** such partnership, 



Abernathy, Lyerly & Co., 159 N. C. 
283, 74 S. B. 1025; Koohs Co. v. Jack- 
son, 156 N. C. 326, 72 S. E. 382. 

42. Minn. — Dimond v. Minnesota 
Sav. Bank, 70 Minn. 298, 73 N. W. 
182. Neb. — Winters v. Means, 50 Neb. 
209, 69 N. W. 753; Church v. Callahan, 
49 Neb. 542, 68 N. W. 932. Ohio. 
Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Carnahan, 63 Ohio 
St. 258, 58 N. E. 805; Pennsylvania 
Pire Ins. Co. v. Carnahan, 19 Ohio 
Cir. Ct. 97, 10 Ohio Cir. Dee. 225. 
Wyo.— Noble v. Hudson, 20 Wyo. 227, 
122 Pac. 901. 

[a] Alleging Partners' Names Sur- 
plusage. — Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Carna- 
han, 63 Ohio St. 258, 58 N. B. 805. 

43. National Ins. Co. v. Bowman, 
60 Mo. 252. 

44. Alsop V. Central Trust Co., 100 
Ky. 375, 18 Ky. L. Eep. 830, 38 S. W. 
510. 

[a] A complaint against a non- 
trad^ partnership upon a written 
obligation signed in the firm name by 
one of the partners, the plaintiff must 
affirmatively allege the nature of the 
partnership. Alsop v. Central Trust 
Co., 100 -Ky. 375, 18 Ky. L. Eep. 830, 
38 S. W. 510. 

45. MeJunkin v. Plaeek, 80 Neb. 
373, 114 N. W, 411. 

[a] Doing Business in the State, etc. 
That the partnership was organized 
for the purpose of doing business in 
the state or holding property therein, 
must be alleged in jurisdictions per- 
mitting suits by and against the part- 
nership in the firm name, where it is 
organized for such purpose. MeJun- 
kin V. Plaeek, 80 Neb. 373, 114 N. W. 
411; Church V. Callahan, 49 Neb. 542, 
68 N. W. 932; Peaks v. Graves, 25 Neb. 
235, 41 N. W. 151; Burlington, etc. 
E. Co. V. Dick, 7 Neb. 242; Jackson 
V. Akron Brick Assn., 53 Ohio St. 
303, 41 N. E. 257, 53 Am. St. Hep. 
638, 33 L. E. A. 287; Shafer v. Hock- 



heimer, 36 Ohio St. 215; Sanders v. 
K«ber, 28 Ohio St. 630; Haskins v. 
Alcott, 13 Ohio St. 210; Beers & Co. 
V. Gurney, 14 Ohio Cir. Ct. 82, 7 Ohio 
Cir. Dec. 411. 

[b] "Doing Business" Sufficient. 
An allegation that the firm "was do- 
ing business under that name in the 
state of O. " is sufficient without al- 
leging that it was formed for the 
purpose of doing business in the state. 
Globe Eolling Mill v. King & Co., 13 
Ohio Dec. 744, 2 Cin. Sup. Ct. 21. 

46. See supra, II, D, 1. 

47. Cal. — Holden v. Mensinger, 165 
Pac. 950; Cook v. Fowler, 101 Cal. 89, 
35 Pac. 431; Phillips v. Goldtree, 74 
Cal. 151, 13 Pac. 313, 15 Pac. 451. 
Mont. — Eeilly v. Hatheway, 46 Mont. 
1, 125 Pac. 417. Ohio.— Walsh v. J. E. 
Thomas' Sons, 91 Ohio St. 210, 110 
N. E. 454; Kinsey & Co. v. Ohio South- 
ern Ey. Co., 3 Ohio Dec. 249, 2 Ohio 
N. P. 175. Contva, New Carlisle Bank 
V. Brown, 11 Ohio Cir. Ct. 77, 5 Ohio 
Cir. Dec. 94. Okla. — Oklahoma Fire 
Ins. Co. V. Wagester, 38 Okla. 291, 
132 Pac. 1071; Swope v. Burnham, 6 
Okla. 736, 52 Pac. 924. 

[a] The presumption iS that the 
law has been complied with. Okla- 
homa Fire Ins. Co. v. Wagester, 38 
Okla. 291, 132 Pac. 1071; Swope v. 
Burnham, 6 Okla. 736, 52 Pac. 924. 

[b] But where the complaint shows 
upon its face that the plaintiffs are 
doing business under a fictitious name 
and declares upon a contract made 
in the firm name, it then devolves 
upon the plaintiffs to further allege 
that they have complied with the pro- 
visions of the statute. Sweeney v. 
Stanford, 67 Cal. 635, 8 Pac. 444, dis- 
cussed in Alaska Salmon Co. v. Stand- 
ard Box Co., 158 Cal. 567, 112 Pac. 
454. 

48. Adams Express Co. v. State, 161 
Ind. 328, 67 N. E. 1033. 

Vol. XXI 



76 



PABTNEBSHIP 



as non-compliance is matter to be pleaded in defense to defeat the 
action.*' 

(V.) Prayer. -In a suit against a firm it is not necessary to pray 
for a judgment against each and a judgment against all.^" 

2. Plea or Answer. — a. Denial of Partnership. — - In many juris- 
dictions, in actions by or against a partnership, the existence of the 
partnership must be denied by a plea verified by afSdavit in order 
to make, an issue thereon,^ ^ but such a plea is not necessary to allow 
a defendant to show a non-joinder of other members composing the 
partnership,^^ nor under some of the statutes is such a plea necessary 



49. See infra, II, G, 2, c. 

50. Tracy v. Symmes, 7 Ky. L. Eep. 
450. 

51. Ala. — Guin v. Grasselli Chemical 
Co., 197 Ala. 117, 72 So. 4l3; Brantley 
V. Thomas, 194 Ala. 646, 70 So. 122. 
Ark. — Stone v. Kaufman & Co., 25 
Ark. 186. Colo. — Litchfield v. Daniels, 
1 Colo. 268. Fla. — Smith v. Westeott, 
34 Fla. 430, 16 So. 332. Ga.— Water- 
man c. Glisson, 115 Ga. 773, 42 S. E. 
95; De Leon v. Heller, 77 Ga. 740; 
Seymour, Johnson & Co. v. Cobb, 43 
Ga. 525. lU.— Smith v. Knight, 71 111. 
148, 22 Am. Eep. 94; M;cKinney v. 
Peck, 28 111. 174; Warren v. Chambers, 
12 111. 124. la. — Eichards v. Hellen, 
153 Iowa 66, 133 N. W. 393. Kan. 
Hayner v. Eberhardt, 37 Kan. 308, 15 
Pac. 168. Md.— National Bldg. Sup- 
ply Co. V. Gosnell, 116 Md. 640, 82 
Atl. 557. IVIiss. — Walker Bros. v. Nix, 
115 Miss. 199, 76 So. 143; Anderson 
V. Tarpley, 6 Smed. & M. 507. Mo. 
Curtis V. Sexton, 252 Mo. 221, 159 S. 
W. 512; Nephler v. Woodward, 200 
Mo. 179, 98 S. W. 488; Commercial 
Jewelry Co. v. Hite, 161 Mo. App. 
465, 144 S. W. 153; Meeks v. Clear 
Jack Min. Co., 141 Mo. App. 648, 124 
S. W. 1084. Pa.^Stahle v. Poth, 220 
Pa. 335, 69 Atl. 864; Elm City Lumber 
Co. V. Haupt, 50 Pa. Super. 489. Tenn. 
Eiehmond v. Boyd, 130 Tenn. 187, 169 
S. W. 755; Barrett v. Hambright, i 
Sneed 586. Tex.— Tyler Box & Lumber 
Mfg. Co. V. City Nat. Bank (Tex. Civ. 
App.), 185 S. W. 352; Houston & 
Texas Central E. Co. v. Corsicana Fruit 
Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 170 S. W. 849. 
Va. — Shepherd, Hunter & Co. v Frys, 
3 Gratt. (44 Va.) 442. W. Va.— Euff- 
ner Bros. v. Montgomery & Co., 61 
W. Va. 62, 56 8. E. 388; Hall v. 
Lyons, 29 W. Va. 410, 1 S. B. 582. 
Wla.- Woolsey v. Henke, 125 Wis. 134, 
103 N. W. 267; Lago v. Walsh, 98 Wis, 
348, 74 N. W. 212. 

Vol. xxr 



See 7 Standard Peoc. 55, note 18. 

[a] Verified denial not necessary 
where action is not by or against a 
partnership. Thus, in an account sued 
on by the assignees of a partnership, 
the partnership may be denied without 
verifying the plea. Commercial Jew- 
elry Co. V. Hite, 161 Mo. App. 465, 144 
S. W. 153. 

[b] Plaintiff May Waive Require- 
ment. — Goebel v. Montgomery & Co., 
63 111. App. 135 (by failing to object 
to introduction of evidence); National 
Bldg. Supply Co. V. Gosnell, 116 Md. 
640, 82 Atl. 557. 

[c] Insufficient Denial.— la.— Uni- 
'I'ersity of Chicago v. Emmert, 108 
Iowa 500, 79 N. W. 285. Ky.— Craig 
V. Chipman, 22 Ky. L. Eep. 322, 57 
8. W. 244. Wis.— Martin v. American 
Exp. Co., 19 Wis. 336, unverified de- 
nial. 

rd] On a plea of payment it is not 

necessary to prove who composed the 
planitifif firm. Stone v. ' Kaufman & 
Co., 25 Ark. 186. 

fe] Withdrawal of verified denial 
effects an admission of the allegation 
of partnership. Gay v. Waltman, 89 
Pa. 453. 

[f J A verified plea by one of the 
defendants denying (1) that he is a 
partner is sufficient to place the neces- 
sity upon the plaintiff of proving that 
the defendant so denying was in fact 
a partner (Eeiter v. Fruh, 150 Pa. 623, 
24 Atl. 347 See also Bradford v. 
Taylor 61 Tex. 508), and (2) inures 
to the benefit of all, according to some 
authorities. Willis v. Morrison, 44 Tex 
27; Hayden Saddlery Hdw. Co. v. 
Eamsay, 14 Tex. Civ. App. 185, 36 
H. W. 595. But see Ginners' Mutual 
Underwriters v. Wiley (Tex Civ 
App.), 147 S. W. 629. Compare 7 

STAXDAtiD PrOC. 61. 

52. Tallapoosa County Bank v. Sal- 
mon, 12 Ala. App. 589, 68 So. 542; 



PABTNEBSEIP 



77 



where the defendants are sued as partners.°^ Under some of the 
statutes, a denial, verified by affidavit, of the execution of the in- 
strument sued upon will put in issue the fact of partnership. °* 

b. Denial of Liability. — If the defendants wish to deny that they 
are jointly liable upon an instrument, they should deny its execution 
under oath.^^ 

c. Filing Certificate of Fictitious Name. — A defense that plain- 
tiffs have no right to maintain a suit for the reason that they have 
failed to file a certificate of fictitious name must be specially pleaded,"* 
otherwise it will be deemed waived."' 



Houston & Texas Central E. Co. v. 
Corsicana Fruit Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 
170 S. W. 849. 

53. Minn. — McKasy v. Huber, 65 
Minn. 9, 67 N. W. 650. N. Y.— See 
Schneider v. Fuchs, 107 N. Y. Supp. 
33. Tenn. — Eichmond v. Boyd, 130 
Tenn. 187, 169 S. W. 755. 

And see Graham v. Henderson, 35 
Ind. 195, in the absence of statute. 

54. Finney v. Erie City Iron Works, 
109 Ala. 485, 20 So. 48; Cain Lumb. 
Co. V. Standard Dry Kiln Co., 108 
Ala. 346, 18 So. 882; Fowlkes & Co. 
V. Baldwin, Kent & Co., 2 Ala. 70^; 
Rogers v. Nuckolls, 2 Colo. 281; Litch- 
field V. Daniels, 1 Colo. 268. 

55. Colo. — ^Litchfield v. Daniels, 1 
Colo. 268. HI.— Zuel v. Bowen, 78 111. 
234; Kennedy v. Hall, 68 111. 165; 
Davis V. Scarritt, 17 111. 202; Warren 
V. Chambers, 12 111. 124, joint liability 
admitted by those who fail to join in 
the affidavit. la. — Byington v. Wood- 
ward, ■& Iowa 360. Mich. — McEobert 
V. Crane, 49 Mich. 483, 13 N. W. 820; 
Haight V. Arnold, 48 Mich. 512, 12 N.. 
W. 680; Wren v. McLaren, 48 Mich. 
197, 12 N. W. 41. Miss. — Fairchild 
V. Grand Gulf Bank, 5 How. 597. Mo. 
Greene v. Wilhite, 29 Mo. App. 459. 
Tenn. — Barrett v. Hambright, 4 Sneed 
586. Tex. — Ferguson v. Wood, 23 Tex. 
177. Va. — Phaup v. Stratton, 9 Gratt. 
(50 Va.) 615. Wis.— Whitman v. 
Wood, 6 Wis. 676. 

[a] The affidavit should, not be 
technically construed, but should be 
held sufficient if in good faith it 
seems to be intended to meet the plain- 
tiff's case. Haight v. Arnold, 48 Mich. 
512, 12 N. W. 680. And see also 
Wren v. McLaren, 48 Mich. 197, 12 N. 
W. 41. 

56. Cal. — Cook V. Fowler, 101 Cal. 
89, 35 Pac. 431; Carlock v. Cagnacci, 
88 Cal. 600, 26 Pac. 597, demurrer not 
proper objection. Mich. — Turnbull v. 



Michigan Central E. Co., 183 Mich. 
213, 150 N. W. 132. Mont.— Eeilly 
V. Hatheway, 46 Mont. 1, 125 Pac. 
417; Vaughan v. Kujath, 44 Mont. 484, 
120 Pac. 1121; Wilson v. Yegen Bros., 
38 Mont. 504, 100 Pac. 613. N. Y. 
Stoddart v. Key, 62 How. Pr. 137; 
O 'Toole V. Garvin, 1 Hun 92; Henne- 
quin V. Butterfield, 11 Jones & S. 411; 
Lunt V. Lunt, 8 Abb. K. C. 76. Ohio. 
Walsh V. J. E. Thomas' Sons, 91 Ohio 
St. 210, 110 N. B. 454; Kinsey & Co. 
V. Ohio Southern Ey. Co., 3 Ohio Dec. 
249, 2 Ohio N. P. 175. OMa.- Swope 
V. Burnham, 6 Okla. 736, 52 Pac. 924. 
Ore. — Beamish v. Noon, 76 Ore. 415, 
149 Pac. 522. S. D.— Drake u. Great 
Northern Ey. Co., 24 S. D. 19, 123 N. 
W. 82. Wash.— Hale v. City Cab, Car- 
riage & Transfer Co., 66 Wash. 459, 
119 Pac. 837; Bowman v. Harrison, 59 
Wash. 56, 109 Pac. 192. 

See supra, II, G, 1, b, (IV). 

[a] Conclusion of Law. — An allega- 
tion that the designation under which 
the plaintiffs sued is one not showing 
the names of the persons interested as 
partners is a mere conclusion of law 
and insufficient. Vaughan v. Kujath, 
44 Mont. 484, 120 Pac. 1121. 

57. Cal.— Cook V. Fowler, 101 Cal. 
89, 35 Pac. 43. But see Sweeney v. 
Stanford, 67 Cal. 635, 8 Pac. 444, supra, 
IT, H, 1, b, (IV), note. Mont.— Eeilly 
V. Hatheway, 46 Mont. 1, 125 Pac. 417. 
Ohio. — Kinsey & Co. v. Ohio Southern 
Ey. Co., 3 Ohio Dec. 249, 2 Ohio N. P. 
175. Wash.— Hale v. City Cab, Car- 
riage & Transfer Co., 66 Wash. 459, 
119 Pac. 837; Bowman v. Harrison, 59 
Wash. 56, 109 Pac. 192. 

But compare Cobble v. Farmers' 
Bank, 63 Ohio St. 528, 59 N. E. 221, 
holding that a judgment taken by a 
partnership doing business under a 
fictitious name -without complying with 
the statute is invalid. 

Vol. XXI 



78 



PARTNERSHIP 



d. Separate Pleas by Partners. — In an action against partners 
upon a partnership liability, either partner may separately plead a 
defense available either to himself alone,^^ or to all the partners.^" 
A partner may adopt his copartners plea,®" and a defense by one 
partner may inure to the benefit of another partner sued jointly with 
him.^^ 

3. Replication or Reply. — Plaintiff may in accordance with the 
.►iCneral rules where such is the practice, reply to any new matter 
contained in the plea or answer of defendant.^^ 

4. Verification. — Under the theory that one partner is the agent 
for the firm in so far as he acts within the scope of his authority, one 
partner may verify the pleadings of the firm.^^ 

5. Amendments. — The general rules governing the right to amend 
pleadings"* apply in actions by or against partners. Thus under 
proper circumstances amendments may be made to show the existence,"^ 



58. Ala. — Emanuel v. Martin, 12 
Ala. 233; Plowman v. Eiddle, 7 Ala. 
775; Beal v. Snedioor, S Port. 523. 
Conn.— Anderson v. Henshaw, 2 Day 
272. Fla.— Friend v. Duryee, 17 Fla. 
Ill, 35 Am. Eep. 89. Ga. — Strausa v. 
Waldo, Barry & Co., 25 Ga. 641. Pa. 
Nelson v. Lloyd, 9 Watts 22; Prior v. 
Wurzburger & Co., 4 Kulp 9. Tex. 
Walton V. Payne, 18 Tex. 60. 

[a] The failure of one partner to 
plead, thus admitting the plaintiff's 
claim, will not affect the right of an- 
other partner to enter a plea deny- 
ing Buch claim. Corcoran v. Trich, 9 
Sad. (Pa.) 110, 11 Atl. 677; Prior v. 
Wurzburger & Co., i Kulp (Pa.) 9. 

59. Ala. — Emanuel v. Martin, 12 
Ala. 233. ria. — Friend v. Duryee, 17 
Fla. Ill, 35 Am. Eep. 89. Ga.— Wynne 
V. Millers, 61 Ga. 343. III.— Yoeum 
V. Benson, 45 111. 435 (denial of exist- 
ence of the partnership); Davis v. 
Scarritt, 17 111. 202. la.— Machinists ' 
Bank v. Krum, 15 Iowa 49, usury. 
Ky. — Vallandingham v. Duval, 7 J. J. 
Marsh. 262, statute of limitations. 

[a] One partner may demur while 
another may answer the complaint upon 
the merits. Allison Bros. Co. v. Hart, 
56 Hun 282, 9 N. Y. Supp. 692, 30 
N. Y. St. 697. ■ 

60. Barnett v. Watson, 1 Wash. (1 
Va.) 372. 

61. Machinists' Bank v. Krum, 15 
Iowa 49; McEobert v. Crane, 49 Mich. 
483, 13 N. W. 826. 

62. See generally the title "Repli- 
cation and Reply," and Fordice v. 
Seribner, 108 Ind. 85, 9 N. E. 122. 

[a] Ratification of note sued on 
may be pleaded where one of the de- 

Vol. xxr 



fendants denied its execution. Patti- 
son V. Norris, 29 Ind. 165. 

[b] Where one of the defendant 
partners pleads infancy, the plaintiff 
may reply a confirmation of the eon- 
tract by him after reaching his major- 
ity. Kirby v. Cannon, 9 Ind. 371. 

63. Ala. — Garner v. Simpson, Minor 
67. la. — Lessem, Bro. & Co. v. Wil- 
son, 43 Iowa 488, where the affidavit 
fails to show that the person verify- 
ing the pleading is a member of the 
firm, the court will, in the absence of 
proof to the contrary, presume" that 
he is. N. Y. — Mooney v. Eyerson, 8 
Civ. Proc. 435. Tenn.— Cheatham i\ 
Pearce, 89 Tenn. 668, 15 S. W. 1080; 
Moody V. Alter, Winston & Co., 12 
Heisk. 142. Wis. — Garland v. Hiekey, 
75 Wis. 178, 43 N. W. 832. 

64. See generally the titles "Amend- 
ments and Jeofails;" "New Cause of 
Action or Defense." 

65. Colo.— Fryer v. Breeze, 16 Colo. 
323, 26 Pac. 817. Ga.— Heyman v. 
Decatur Street Bank, 16 Ga. App. 14, 
84 S. E. 483; Dublin & S. W. Ey. 
Co. V. Akerman, 2 Ga. App. 746, 59 
S. E. 10. Mo.— Gunther Bros. & Co. 
V. Aylor, 92 Mo. App. 161. S. C. 
Munroe v. Williams, 85 S. C. 572, 15 
S. E. 279. 

[a] An allegation that the com- 
pany Is a corporation may be amended 
by striking the word corporation and 
making an allegation that the com- 
pany is a partnership. Ala Manistee 

Mill Co. V. Hobdy, 165 Ala. 411, 51 So. 
S71, 138 Am. St. Eep. 73. Ga.— Per- 
kins Co. V. Shewmake, 119 Ga. 617, 46 
S. E. 832. Kan. — Anglo-American 
Pack. & Prov. Co. v. Turner Casing 



PABTNEBSEIP . 



79 



or non-existence*^ of a partnership ; to correct an averment of the firm 
name,*' or name of a member thereof/* or to show who the individual 
members of the firm are.*° And an amendment may, within the court 's 
discretion, be allowed converting an action by or against a firm to 
one by or against the individual members thereof,'" or vice versa.'^ 
H. Issues, Phoof and Variance.'^ — 1. Existence of Partnership. 
At common law, an averment of partnership had to be proved as al- 
leged.'^ Under the statutes it need be proved only when there is a 
proper denial thereof.'* Proof of a partnership by estoppel is suflfi- 



Co., 34 Kan. 340, 8 Pae. 403. Mo. 
Ward V. Pine, 50 Mo. 38. 

66. McDorment V. Hicksen, 9 Ky. L. 
Eep. 1012. 

[a] Where a corporation is sued as 
a partnership, the complaint may be 
amended to show that the defendant 
is a corporation. Ala. — Lewis Lumb. 
Co. V. Gamody, 137 Ala. 578, 35 So. 
126; Key v. Goodall, Brown & Co., 
7 Ala. A.pp. 227, 60 So. 986. Kan. 
Anglo-American P. & P. Co. v. Turner 
Casing Co., 34 Kan. 340, 8 Pac. 403. 
S. D. — Haggarty v. Strong, 10 S. D. 
585, 74 N. W. 1037. 

67. Craig v. Chipman, 22 Ky. L. 
Eep. 322, 57 S. W. 244. 

68. Welch V. Hull, 73 Mich. 47, 40 
N. W. 797; Dwyer Brick Works r. 
Flanagan Bros., 87 Mo. App. 340. 

69. TJ. S. — SchifEer v. Anderson, 146 
Ted. 457, 76 C. C. A. 667. Ark. 
Loewenberg v. Gilliam, 72 Ark. 314, 79 
S. W. 1064, allow setting out of names 
of members. Cal. — Bogart v. Crosby, 
91Cal. 278, 27 Pac. 603. Colo. — Adam- 
son V. B«rgen, 15 Colo. App. 396, 62 
Pac. 629, addition of partner. Conn. 
Phelps Mfg. Co. V. Enz, 19 Conn. 58. 
Ga. — Perkins Co. v. Shewmake, 119 Ga. 
617, 46 S. E. 832; Smith & Co. v. 
Columbia Jewelry Co., 114 Ga. 698, 40 
S. E. 735. la.— Padden v. Clark, 124 
Iowa 94, 99 F. W. 152, amendment 
allowed showing that firm was com- 
posed of one individual. Kan. — Huckle- 
bridge v. Atchison, T. & S. F. E. 
Co., 66 Kan. 443, 71 Pac. 814; Anglo- 
American Pack. & Prov. Co. v. Turner 
Casing Co., 34 Kan. 340, 8 Pac. 403; 
Henderson v. Sletter, 31 Kan. 56, 2 
Pac. 849. ]Mich. — Stirling v. Heintz- 
man, 42 Mich. 449, 4 N. W. 165. Minn. 
Miles V. Wann, 27 Minn. 56, 6 N. W. 
417. Mo. — Tyrrel v. Milliken, 135 Mo. 
App. 293, 115 S. W. 512; Gunther Bros. 
& Co. V. Aylor, 92 Mo. App. 161; 
Dwyen Brick Works v. Flanagan Bros., 
87 Mo. App. 340. Okla. — Symns Gro- 



cer Co. V. Burnham, 6 Okla. 618, 52 
Pac. 918, adding a partner. Pa.- — Dan- 
iel V. Lance, 29 Pa. Super. 454. Utah. 
Brown v. Pickard, 4 Utah 292, 9 Pac. 
573, 11 Pac. 512. Va.— Murdock v. 
Herndon's Exrs., 4 Hen. & M. (14 
V.a.) 200. 

70. Ala. — Levystein v. Gerson, Selig- 
man & Co., 147 Ala. 251, 41 So. 774. 
Mo. — Tyrrel v. Milliken, 135 Mo. App. 
293, 115 8. W. 512. S. C— Baker v. 
Hornick, 51 S. C. 313, 28 S. E. 941. 

But see Emerson v. Wilson, 11 Vt. 
357, 34 Am. Dee. 695. 

71. Ala.— Lister v. Vowel], 122 Ala. 
264, 25 So. 564; McCaskey v. Pollock 
& Co., 82 Ala. 174, 2 So. 674. la. 
Van Dyk v. Mosterdt, 171 Iowa 3, 153 
N. W. 206; Hodges v. Kimball, 49 Iowa 
577, 31 Am. Eep. 158; Dixon v. Dixon, 
19 Iowa 512. Mo. — Tyrrel v. Milliken, 
135 Mo. App. 293, 115 S. W. 512. 
Ore.— York v. Nash, 42 Ore. 321, 71 
Pac. 59. 

72. See generally the title "Vari- 
ance and. Failure of Proof." 

73. Ala. — Findlay v. Stevenson, 3 
Stew. 48. Del. — Boswell & Co. v. Dun- 
ning, 5 Harr. 231. HI. — King v. Haines, 
23 111. 340. Minn.— Hayward v. Grant, 
13 Minn. 165, 97 Am. Dec. 228; 
Irvine v. Myers & Co., 4 Minn. 229. 
Neb. — McDonald v. Jenkins, 44 Neb. 
163, 62 N. W. 444. 

74. U. S.— Pratt v. Willard,'6 Mc- 
Lean 27, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 11,378. 
Ala. — Moore v. Burns & Co., 60 Ala. 
269. Ark.— Stone v. Kaufman & Co., 
25 Ark. 186. Colo.— Teller v. Hart- 
man, 16 Colo. 447, 27 Pac. 947; Litch- 
field V. Daniels, 1 Colo. 268. Fla. 
Smith V. Westcott, 34 Fla. 430, 16 So. 
332. Ga. — Henderson Warehouse Co. 
V. Brand, 105 Ga. 217, 31 S. E. 551; 
Wiggins V. McCalla, 20 Ga. App. 739, 
93 S. E. 231. 111.— Smith v. Knight, 
71 111. 148, 22 Am. Eep. 94; Ken- 
nedy V. Hall, 68 m. 165; Yoeum v. 
Benson, 45 111. 435; King v. Haines, 

Vol. XXI 



80 



PARTNERSHIP 



cient to entitle the plaintiffs to recover.^" 

A variance will result between a pleading setting up a partnership 
and proof showing that at the time of the accrual of the cause of 
action, the firm was not composed as alleged,^^ or that it was a corpora- 
tion instead of a partnership/^ but the existence of the partnership 
being proved, a variance as to the firm name is immaterial/* 

2. As to Liability. — There is no variance between a declaration 
' against the defendants as joint makers of a note and proof that they 
made the note as partners,'* or that it was executed by one of the 
partners in the firm name.*" An action to recover as upon a partnership 
demand is, unless the liability is joint and several, fatally variant from 
proof showing liability of one of the partners individually,*^ and a 



23 111. 340; Haywood v. Harmon, 17 
111. 477; Warren v. Chambers, 12 111. 
124. Ind. — Hauser v. Smith, 13 Ind. 
532; Groves v. Train, 11 Ind. 198; 
Eees V. Simons, 10 Ind. 82. Ky. — Fen- 
nell V. Myers, 25 Ky. L. Rep. 589, 76 
S. W. 136; Craig v. Chipman, 22 Ky. 
L. Itep. 322, 57 S. W. 244. I.a.--At- 
water & Co. v. Colton, 18 La. Ann. 
226. Md.— Thome v. Pox, 67 Md. 67, 
8 Atl. 667. Minn. — Stickney v. Smith, 
Baker & Co., 5 Minn. 486; Irvine v. 
Myers & Co., 4 Minn. 229. IHiss. 
Walker Bros. v. Nix, 115 Miss. 199, 
76 So. 143. Mo.— Curtis v. Sexton, 252 
Mo. 221, 159 S. W. 512; Nephler v. 
Woodward, 200 Mo. 179, 98 S. W. 488. 
Neb. — McCann v. McDonald & Co., 7 
Neb. 305. N. Y.— McCall v. Mosch- 
cowitz, 10 Civ. Proe. 107, 14 Daly 
16, 1 N. Y. St. 99; Anable v. Steam- 
Engine Co., 16 Abb. Pr. 286. Ohio. 
Clark V. Kensell, Wright 480. Pa. 
Pag«ly V. Bellas, 17 Pa. 67. Tex. 
Gulf, C. & S. F. By. Co. v. EdlofE, 
89 Tex. 454, 34 S. W. 414, 35 S. W, 
144; Lindsay v. JafEray, 55 Tex. 626. 
Va. — Phaup v. Stratton, 9 Gratt. (50 
Va.) 615; Shepherd, Hunter & Co. v. 
Frya, 3 Grqtt. (44 Va.) 422. W. Va. 
Euffner v. Montgomery, 61 W. Va. 62, 
56 S. B. 388; Hall v. Lyons, 29 W. 
Va. 410, 1 S. E. 582. Wis.— Lago v. 
Walsh, 98 Wis. 348, 74 N. W. 212; 
Fisk V. Tank, 12 Wis. 276, 78 Am. 
Dec. 737; Whitman v. Wood, 6 Wis. 
676; Barnes v. Elmbinger, 1 Wis. 56. 

See supra, II, G, 2, a. 

75. Ala.— Cain Lumb. Co. v. Stand- 
ard Dry Kiln Co., 108 Ala. 346, 18 
So. 882. Ark. — Brugman v. McGuire, 
32 Ark. 733. Conn Salomon v. Hop- 
kins, 61 Conn. 47, 23 Atl. 716. Del. 
Davis V. White, 1 Houst. 228. HI. 
Smith V. Knight, 71 111. 148, 22 Am. 
Eep. 94; Fisher «. Bowles, 20 111. 396. 

Vol, XSI 



Ind. — Henshaw v. Boot, 60 Ind. 220; 
Stephenson v. Cornell, 10 Ind. 475. la. 
Hancock & Co. v. Hintrager, 60 Iowa 
374, 14 N. W. 725; Maxwell v. Gibbs, 
32 Iowa 32. Mass. — Bice v. Barrett, 
116 Mass. 312. Mich.— Gray v. Gib- 
son, 6 Mich. 300. Mo. — Campbell v. 
Dent, 54 Mo. 325; Young v. Smith, 
25 Mo. 341; Bippey v. Evans, 22 Mo. 
157. Neb. — McDonald v. Jenkins, 44 
Neb. 163, 62 ,N. W. 444. N. Y.— Hal- 
liday v. McDougall, 22 Wend. 264. 
Ohio. — Beber v. Columbus Machine 
Mfg. Co., 12 Ohio St. 175. Pa.— Eeed 
V. Kremer, 111 Pa. 482, 5 Atl. 237. 
Vt.— Hicks & Co. V. Cram, 17 Vt. 449. 
Wis. — Cornhauser & Co. v. Boberts, 75 
Wis. 554, 44 N. W. 744. 

76. Neal V. Adkins (Tex. Civ. App.), 
145 S. W. 264. 

[a] Such variance is immaterial 
where the opposite party is not mis- 
led in maintaining his defense on the 
merits. Schiffer v. Anderson, 146 Fed. 
457, 76 C. C. A. 667. 

77. McGrew & Sons v. Earnest, 167 
Ala. 531, 52 So. 639; Collier v. Pos- 
tum Cereal Co., 150 App. Div. 169, 134 
N. Y. Supp. 847. 

78. Mass.— Phipps v. Little, 213 
Mass. 414, 100 N. E. 615. Minn 
Stickney v. Smith, Baker & Co., 5 
Minn. 486. Pa.— Tarns v. Hitner, 9 
Pa. 441. W. Va.— Courson v. Parker. 
39 W. Va. 521, 20 S. E. 583. 

79. Jemison v. Dearing's Exrs., 41 
Ala. 283; Mack v. Spencer, 4 Wend. 
411. 

80. Ala.— Jemison i>. Dearing's Exrs., 
41 Ala. 283. Conn.— Champion v. Mum- 
ford, Kirby 170. Mass.— Nichols v. 
James, 130 Mass. 589. N. Y.— Vallett 
V. Parker, 6 Wend. 615; Mack v. Spen- 
cer, 4 Wend. 411. 

81. U. S.— Graves v. Boston Marine 
Ins. Co., 2 Cranch 419, 2 L. ed. 324. 



PARTNERSHIP 



81 



complaint by or against a person in his individual capacity is variant 
from proof showing a cause of action by or against a firm of which he 
is a member.^^ But under statutes allowing a recovery against such 
defendants, sued jointly, as are shown to be liable,'^ the fact that 
dU the defendants sued as partners are not shown to be liable is no 
variance.** 

1. Trial. — 1. Separate Trials. — The fact that the partners have 
set up separate defenses does not necessarily entitle them to separate 
trials.^^ 

2. Dismissal, Discontinuance and Nonsuit. — While one partner 
may, upon an action on a partnership demand, dismiss the action 
against the will of his co-plaintiff,*" he cannot do so when shown to 
be acting in fraud or collusion with the defendant,*^ or when it ap- 
pears that the remaining partner plaintiff will suffer injury.** In 
an action against a partnership the plaintiff may discontinue as to 
those partners on whom the writ is not served without effecting & 



Ala. — XJlrick v. Bagan, 11 Ala. 529. 
la.— Ogle V. Miller, 128 Iowa 474, 104 
N. W. 502; Black i;. Struthers, 11 Iowa 
459. Md.— Boyd v. Wolff, 88 Md. 341, 
41 Atl. 897. imch.— Roberts v. Pep- 
ple, 55 Mich. 367, 21 N. W. 319. Miss. 
Wilder v. Harris, 112 Miss: 164, 72 So. 
890. Mo. — Michael v. Kennedy, 166 
Mo. App. 462, 148 S. W. 983., N. Y. 
Menzie v. Wolff, 120 N. Y. Supp. 53. 
Okla. — ^Brown v. Williams, 24 Okla. 
308, 103 Pac. 588. S. 0.— Pope Mfg. 
Co. V. Charleston Cycle Co., 55 S. C. 
528, 33 S. E. 787. Va.— Gordon v. 
Brown's Exr., 3 Hen. & M. (13 Va.) 
219. Vt. — Fullerton v. Seymour, 5 Vt. 
249. 

82. U. S.— Barry v. Foyles, 1 Pet. 
311, 7 L. ed. 157. Ala.— Clark v. 
Jones, 87 Ala. 474, 6 So. 362; MeCul- 
loch V. Judd Sons & Co., 20 Ala. 703. 
Cal.— McCord v. Seale, 56 Cal. 262; 
Kern County Brick & Contract Co. v. 
English, 10 Cal. App. 637, 102 Pac. 
960. Colo. — Erskine v. Russell, 43 
Colo. 449, 96 Pac. 249. Ga. — Champion 
V. Wilson & Co., 64 Ga. 184, 191. 
la. — Smith V. James, 72 Iowa 515, 34 
N. W. 309; Parsons v. Parsons, 66 
Iowa 754, 21 N. W. 570, 24 N. W, 
564. La. — Gallot v. M-cCluskey, 18 La. 
Ann. 259. Md.— Smith v. Crichton, 33 
Md. 103; Neal's Exrs. v. Fisher's 
Admr., 2 Har. & G. 274. Mo. — ^Lowe 
V. Electric Springs Co., 47 Mo. App. 
426. N. I>. — Lake Grocery Co. v. 
Chiostri, 34 N. T>. 386, 158 N. W. 
998. Okla. — King v. Timmons, 23 Okla. 
407, 100 Pac. 536. S. C— Simonds v. 
Speed, 6 Rich. L. 390. Tenn.— Hyman, 
Gratz & Co, v. Stump, Cooke 494. 



Wi9.^Slutts V. Chafee, 48 Wis. 617, 

4 N. W. 763. Can. — Marsolais v. Wil- 
lett, 17 Quebec Sup. Ct. 262. 

83. See infra, II, J, 2, e, and 15 
Standard Pkoc. 84. 

84. Cal. — Morgan v. Righetti, 113 
Cal. xvii, 45 Pac. 260. Mass.— Taft 
I'. Church, 162 Mass. 527, 39 N. E. 
283; Wiggin V. Lewis, 12 Cush. 486. 
Mo. — Hutchinson v. Richmond Safety 
Gate Co., 247 Mo. 71, 152 S. W. 52; 
Bagnell Timber Co. v. Missouri, K. 
& T. R. Co., 242 Mo. 11, 145 S. W. 
469 {reversing 180 Mo. 420, 79 S. W. 
1130); Berkshire Lumb. Co. ■;;. Chick 
Inv. Co., 168 Mo. App. 342, 153 S. W. 
1078; Lowe V. Electric Springs Co., 
47 Mo. App. 426. N. Y. — Pruyn v. 
Black, 21 N. Y. 300 

, 85. Walton v. Payne, 18 Tex. 60. 

86. Arnold v. Greene, 15 B. I. 348, 

5 Atl. 503; Noonan v. Orton, 31 Wis. 
265, one partner may secure a discon- 
tinuance as to himself. 

87. ni. — Winslow v. Newlan, 45 111. 
145. Mms. — Loring v. Brackett, 3 
Pick. 403. Mo. — Hoover v. Missouri 
Pac. By. Co., 16 S. W. 480. B. I. 
Arnold v. Greene, 15 B. I. ,348, 5 
Atl. 503. Wis. — Noonan v. Orton, 31 
Wis. 265. 

88. Arnold v. Greene, 15 R. I. 348, 
5 Atl. 503. See 7 Standard Pkoc. 
656. 

[a] Remedy, — "The most which the 
plaintiff desiring to discontinue can 
require, is indemnity from his co- 
plaintiff in case judgment should go 
for the defendant." Arnold v. Greene, 
15 R. 1. 348, 5 Atl. 503. To same 
effect, Winslow v. Newlan, 45 111. 145. 

Vol. XXI 



82 



PARTNERSHIP 



discontinuance of the action as against the partnership,*' though there 
is authority to the contrary.^" 

3. Province of Court and Jury. — What constitutes a partnership 
is for the court to determine,®^ as is also the existence of the rela- 
tion under undisputed facts. But the evidence being conflicting, the 
question of partnership between the parties should be- left^^ to the 



89. U. S. — Mason v. Connors, 129 
Fed. 831. Ala.— Nail v. Adams, 7 Ala. 
475; Clark v. Stoddard, Miller & Co.., 
3 Ala. 366; Earbee v. Evans, 9 Port. 
295; Gazzam v. Bebee & Co., 8 Port. 
49. Ga. — Warren Brick Co. v. Lagarde 
Lime & Stone Co., 12 Ga. App. 58, 76 
B. E. 761. Kan. — Silvers v. Foster, 9 
Kan. 56. Miss. — Lyons v. Jackson, 1 
How. 474. S. C. — Bull V. Lambson, 5 
8. 0. 288. Tenn.— Link v. Allen, 1 
Heisk. 318. Va. — Brown v. Belches, 1 
Wash. (1 Va.) 9. W. Va.— Carlon's 
Admr. v. Eufener, 12 W. Va. 297. 

See 15 Standard Proc. 8Y; 7 Stand- 
ard Peoc. 666. But see Storm v. Rob- 
erts, 54 Iowa; 677, 7 N. "W. 124. 

90. McManus v. Cash, 101 Tex. 261, 
108 S. "W. 800; Glasscock v. Price, 92 
Tex. 271, 47 S. W. 965; Frank v. 
Tatum, 87 Tex. 204, 25 S. W. 409; 
Tramel v. Guaranty State Bank & 
Trust Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 176 S. W. 
65. See also Eowse v. Woody (Tex. 
Civ. App.), 197 S. W. 362, wherein two 
defendants were sued as partners, the 
plaintiff declaring that his right to 
recover arose under a contract with 
them as a firm, and the court held that 
he could not," by nonsuiting as to one 
defendant, change his action to one 
against the other defendant as an in- 
dividual. 

91. Ala. — Peck V. Lampkin, 75 So. 
580. Del. — Davis v. White, 1 Houst. 
228. Ind. — Matthews v. Myers (Ind. 
App.), 115 N. E. 959. la.— Anfenson 
V. Banks, 163 N. W. 608. Mc— Stun- 
don V. Dahlenberg, 184 Mo. App. 381, 
171 S. W. 37. S. C— Dulany & Co. v. 
Elford, 22 S. C. 304. Utah.- Morgan 
V. Child, Cole & Co., 47 Utah 417, 155 
Pac. 451. 

92. U. S. — Chick v. Eobinson, 95 
Fed. 619, 87 C, C. A. 205, 52 L. E. 
A 833. Ala. — Nevers Lumber Co. v. 
Fields, 151 Ala. 367, 44 So. 81 ; Eabitte 
V. Orr, 83 Ala. 185, 3 So. 420. Colo. 
De Temple v. Mitchell, 15 Colo. App. 
127, 61 Pae. 434; Lo'ok Ding v. Ken- 
nedy, 7 Colo. App. 72, 41 Pac. 1112. 
Conn. — Watson v. Farley, 85 Conn. 705, 
82 Atl. 189. Del.— Jones v. Purnell, 

Vol. xxr 



5 Penne. 444, 62 Atl. 149; Deputy v. 
Harris, 1 Marv. 100, 40 Atl. 714, 1 
Hard. 92. Fla. — Dpggett v. Jordan, 2 
Fla. 541. Ga. — Hutchinson Shoe Co. 
r. Elko Mercantile Co., 143 Ga. 170, 
84 S. E. 453; Cary v. Simpson, 15 Ga. 
App, 280, 82 S. E. 918. 111.— Commer- 
cial Nat. Bank v. Proctor, 98 111. 558; 
Gray's Harbor Commercial Co. v. 
Weise, 86 111. App. 125; Buun v. West, 

13 111. App. 415. Ind.— Matthews v. 
Myers (Ind. App.), 115 N. E. 959. 
la. — Anfenson v. Banks, 163 N. W. 
608. Ky. — Eobertson v. Wilhoite, 157 
Ky. 58, 162 S. W. 563; Mathis v. Bank 
of Taylorsville, 124 S. W. 876. Mass. 
Mersick v. Bilafsky, 205 Mass. 488, 91 
N. B. 889. Mich. — Negaunee First 
Nat. Bank v. Freeman, 47 Mich. 408, 
11 N. W. 219; Chamberlain v. Jackson, 
44 Mich. 320, 6 N. W. 683; Gray v. 
Gibson, 6 Mich. 300. Minn. — Miller 
Pub. Co. V. Orth, 133 Minn. 139, 157 
N. W. 1083; McGi-ay v. Cohb, 130 
Minn. 434, 152 N. W. 262, 153 N. W. 
736. Miss. — Jameson v. Franklin, 6 
How. 376. Mo. — Eimel v. Hayes, 83 
Mo. 200; Hartwell v. Becker, 181 Mo. 
App. 408, 168 S. W. 837; Watts v. 
Pierson, 170 Mo. App. 532, 156 S. W. 
724; Thornton v. Mersereau, 168 Mo. 
App. 1, 151 S. W. 212. Neb.— Wag- 
goner V. First Nat. Bank, 43 Neb. 84, 
61 N. W. 112; McCann v. McDonald 

6 Co., 7 Neb. 305. N. J.— Benoliel v. 
Homac, 87 N. J. L. 375, 94 Atl. 605; 
Seabury v. Bollea, 51 N. J. L. 103, 
16 Atl. 54, 11 L. E. A. 136, modified, 
52 N. J. L. 413, 21 Atl. 952, 11 L. E. 
A. 136. N. Y.— Sheehan v. Fleetham, 
58 Hun 605, 12 N. Y. Supp. 158, 34 
N. Y. St. 665; Drake v. Elwyn, 1 
Caines 184. Okla. — Harmon v. Nation- 
al Supply Co., 166 Pac. 80; Moning 
Dry Goods Co. v. Wiseman, 159 Pac. 
259; Cassidy v. Saline County Bank, 

14 Okla. 532, 78 Pae. 324. Ore.— North 
Pacific Lumb. Co. v. Spore, 44 Ore. 
462, 75 Pac. 890. Pa.— Bing v. Schmitt, 
226 Pa. 622, 75 Atl. 854. S. C— Holli- 
day V. Pegram, 89 S. C. 73, 71 S E. 
367, Ann. Cas. 1913A, 33; American 
Type Founders Co. v. Greenwood Print- 



PARTNEBSHIP 



83 



jury, as should also other matters depending upon disputed facts.^^ 
4. Instructions. — The general rules relating to the giving of in- 
structions as elsewhere discussed apply in actions by, or against firms 
or partners.^* The court should, upon issues arising in respect thereto 
instruct the jury as to what constitutes a partnership or a partner;®^ 
the liability of partners,^^ and the nature of and the facts which make 
property partnership property."'' 

The court may direct a verdict for either party where but one conclu- 
sion can be drawn from the pleadings and evidence.®* 

J. Judgment.®^ — 1. By Default.^ — In those jurisdictions where 
the statutes require service of process upon the individual members 
of the partnership,^ the court, upon service made on the partnership 



ing Co., 88 a C. 30S, 70 S. E. 803. 
Tex. — Texas & Paciiic Ry. Co. v. Mis- 
souri Iron & Metal Co. (Tex. Civ; 
App.), 178 S. W. 597; Look v. Bailey 
(Tex. Civ. App.), 164 S. W. 407. Wash. 
Eandall ■;;. Gerrick, 93 Wash. 522, 161 
Pae. 357. Wis. — ^Moore v. Dickson, 121 
Wis. 591, 99 N. W. 322: Manegold v. 
Grange, 70 Wis. 575, 36 N. W. 263. 

93. Citizens' Trust Co. v. Tindle 
(Mo. App.), 194 S. W. 1066. 

See the title "Province of Judge 
and Jury." 

[a] Whether transaction a partner- 
ship one or an individual one. Ga. 
Mavnard & Son v. Ponder, 75 Ga. 664. 
N. Y.— Boor V. Moschell, 49 Hun 606, 
1 N. Y. Supp. 731, 17 N. Y. St. 310. 
Pa. — Ernest v. Wible, 10 Pa. Super. 
576. S. O. — Planters' Bank v. Biv- 
ingsville Cotton Mfg. Co., 10 Eich. 
L. 95. 

[b] Whether oi not a transaction 
was inconsistent with the general 
scope of the business of the partner- 
ship is a question of fact. Biggs & 
Co. V. Hubert & Co., 14 8. C. 620. 

•[c] The extent of a partner's power 
(1) to bind the firm is a question of 
law in a commercial partnership 
(Alsop V. Central Trust Co., 100 Ky. 
375, 18 Ky. L. Rep. 830, 38 S. W. 
510), while (2) in a non-commercial 
firm, it is a question for the jury. 
Alsop V. Central Trust Co., 100 Ky. 
375, 18 Ky. L. Rep. 830, 38 S. W. 
510. 

94. See the title "Instructions." 

95. See the following cases: Ark. 
Kahn Co. v. Bowden & Co., 80 Ark. 
23, 96 S. W. 126. Colo.— Ashenfelter 
V. Williams, 12 Colo. App. 345, 55 
Pac. 734. Del. — Jones v. Purnell, 5 
Penne. 444, 62 Atl. 149; Deputy v. 
Harris, 1 Marv. 100, 40 Atl. 714, 1 
Hard. 92. la.— Sheldon v, Bigelow, 



118 Iowa 586, 92 N. W. 701. Mich. 
Weeks v. Hutchinson, 135 Mich. 160, 
97 N. W. 695. Minn.— Connolly v. 
Davidson, 15 Minn. 519, 2 Am. Rep. 
154. Mo. — Fourth Nat. Bank v. Alt- 
heimer, 91 Mo. 190, 3 S. W. 858; 
Campbell v. Dent, 54 Mo. 325. Mont. 
Lawrence v. Westlake, 28 Mont. 503, 
73 Pac. 119. S. C— Dulany & Co. v. 
Elford, 22 S. C. 304. Tex.— Coody v. 
Shawver (Tex. Civ. App.), 161 S. W. 
935; Wood V. Samuels, 1 White & W. 
Civ. Caa, §922. WasOi.- Willamette 
Casket Co. v. McGoldrick, 10 Wash. 
229, 38 Pae. 1021. 

96. Ind. — Jones v. Austin, 26 Ind. 
App. 399, 59 N. E. 1082. Mich.— Mc- 
Pherson v. Bristol, 115 Mich. 258, 73 
N. W. 236; Conely v. Wood, 73 Mich. 
203, 41 N. W. 259. Mo.— Cannon v. 
Wing, 150 Mo. App. 12, 129 S. W. 
718. Neb. — Maurer v. Midmay, 25 Neb. 
575, 41 N. W. 395. S. C— Hyrne v. 
Erwin, 23 S. C. 226, 55 Am. Rep. 15. 
Utah. — Morgan v. Child, Cole & Co., 
47 Utah 417, 155 Pac. 451. Wash. 
Calhoun v. Whitcomb, 90 Wash. 128, 
155 Pae. 759. 

97. Bacon v. Lloyd, 1 White & W. 
Civ. Cas. (Tex.) §286. 

98. III.— Powell Co. V. Finn, 198 
111. 567, 64 N. E. 1036. Pa.— Thomp- 
son V. Piot, 52 Pa. Super. Ct. 305. 
S. C— Holliday v. Pegram, 89 S. C. 
73, 71 S. E. 367, Ann. Cas. 1913A, 
33. 

[a] Existence of partnership not 
proved where such proof is necessary. 
Atlanta Trust Co. v. Willingham, 20 
G.a. App. 152, 92 S. K 759. 

99. See generally the title "Judg- 
ments." 

1. See generally 14 Standard Pboc. 
854; 6 Standard Proc. 800. 

2. See supra, II, E, 2. 

Vol. XXI 



84 



PARTNEBSEIP 



itself, does not obtain jurisdiction to enter a default judgment against 
the partnership.^ A default judgment in favor of a partnership is 
not void because the names of the individuals composing the firm have 
not been set forth in the summons.* 

2. By Confession.^ — As a general rule one partner cannot con- 
fess or consent to a judgment binding upon his associates, without 
their consent or concurrence,* but a surviving partner can confess 
judgment which is enforceable by execution against the firm assets 
under his control as survivor.' A judgment obtained upon the con- 
fession cf one partner will not reach the partnership effects, but will 
be effective only against the partners authorizing its entry,^ although 
some courts hold that a confession of judgment by one partner upon 
whom service is made is enforceable against the joint property as 
well as his separate property.^ 

3. Form and SuiScieiicy. — a. Con-formiiy to Pleadings and Proof. 
The general rule that the judgment must conform to the pleadings 
and the proof,^" is applicable to actions between firms or partners and 
third persons.^^ 

b. As to Names of Parties. — (I.) Generally. _ Under statutes per- 
mitting a partnership to sue or be sued in the firm name,^^ a judg- 
ment entered in such name is perfectly proper,^^ and where only the 
firm as an entity is sued, a judgment against the individual partners 
is erroneous." But where no such statutes exist a judgment for or 
against a partnership in the firm name is absolutely void, according 



3. Miller v. First State Bank & 
Trust Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 184 S. W. 
614. 

4. Fredlook v. Fredloek, 70 W. Va. 
607, 74 S. E. 865. 

5. See generally 14 Standard Proc. 
791. 

6. See 14 Standard Proc. 798. 

As to whether a judgment confessed 
without authority by one partner is a 
bar to another action against the firm, 
see 15 Standard Peoc. 569. 

Waiver of objection- by failure of 
other partners to make application for 
vacation, see 15 Standard Proc. 185, 
note. 

7. Stampfle v. Bush, 71 W. "Va. 659, 
77 S. E. 283. 

8. See 14 Standard Proc 799. 

9. See 14 Standard Proc. 799. 

10. See generally 15 Standard 
Proc. 35. 

11. Cai. — Weinreich v. Johnson, 78 
Cal. 254, 20 Pac. 556; Shirran v. Dal- 
las, 21 Cal. App. 405, 132 Pae. 454, 
462. Colo. — Jansen v. Hyde, 8 Colo. 
App. 38, 44 Pac. 760; Shafer v. Hewitt. 
6 Colo. App. 374, 41 Pae. 509; Deis- 

Vol. XXl 



sauer v. Koppin, 3 Colo. App. 115, 32 
Pae. 182. Ind.— Hill v. Marsh, 46 Ind. 
218. la. — McDonald v. Franehere, 102 
Iowa 496, 71 N. W. 427. N. Y. 
Brandagee v. Cleary, 152 N. Y. Supp. 
628. Okla. — Holmes v. Alexander, 152 
Pac. 819; Heaton v. Schaeffer, 34 Okla. 
631, 126 Pac. 797, 43, L. B. A. (N. S.) 
540; Sayre Commission Co. v. Keen, 
26 Okla. 794, 110 Pac. 775. Tex. 
Hughes Bros. & Co. v. McDill, 1 White 
& W. Civ. Cas., §1266. Va.— Adams 
& Co. V. Powers, Blair & Co., 82 Va. 
612. 

[a] Whether a person is a member 
of a partnership and liable as such 
being an issue in the ease, the judg- 
ment against the partnership should 
identify such person as a member of 
the firm. Paul v. Commercial Bank, 
66 Fla. 83, 63 So. 265. 

12. See supra, II, D, 1. 

13. Carrier v. Hampton, 33 N. C. 

oU7. 

14. Craig v. Smith, 10 Colo. 220, 15 
Pac. 337; Dessauer v. Koppin, 3 Colo. 
App. 115, 32 Pac. 182: Teller v. 
Gerry, 30 Misc. 12?, 61 N. Y. Supp. 
864. 



PARTNERSHIP 



85 



to some authorities,^' while others hold it to be merely erroneous," and 
require a timely objection to render such error available.^' Under a stat- 
ute authorizing a judgment against all of the joint debtors or pai'tners, 
enforceable against those served and the joint or partnership property, 
the plaintiff is entitled to a judgment in the form thus preseribed.^^ 
Fictitious Firm Name. — In those jurisdictions requiring the filing of 
a certificate of names where a partnership is doing business under a 
fictitious name, before it is permitted to maintain a suit,^^ a judg- 
ment entered in the firm narde where no such certificate has been filed, 
has been held void,^" but generally the judgment is not affected by 



15. Del. — Hitch v. Gray, 1 Marv. 
400, 41 Atl. 91, 2 Hard. 113. Mo. 
Weldon i>. Fisher, 194 Mo. App. 573, 
186 S. W. 1153; Johnson Machinery 
Co. V. Watson, 57 Mo. App. 629. N. J. 
Tomlinson i). Burke, 10 N". J. L. 295; 
Williamson v. Wright, 3 N. J. L. 984. 
Tex.— Frank v. Tatum, 87 Tex. 204, 25 
S. W. 409; American Express Co. v. 
North Fort Worth Undertaking Co. 
(Tex. Civ. App.), 179 S. W. 908. 

16. Ind. — ^Meyer v. Wilson, 166 Ind. 
651, 76 N. E. 748. Term. — Marshal v. 
Hill, 8 Yerg. 101, may be taken ad- 
vantage of by plea in abatement. Tex. 
Ferryman w.'Eayburn (Tex. Civ. App.), 
30 S. W. 915; Stephens v. Turner, 9 
Tex. Civ. App. 628, 29 S. W. 937. 

[a] The person doing business in 
such name as sole member, is bound. 
Easterwood v. Burnett, 59 Tex. Civ. 
App. 521, 126 S. W. 934. 

[b] If other parts of record show 
the partners' names, it is sufB.cient. 
Olson V. Veazie, 9 Wash. 481, 37 Pac. 
677, 43 Am. St. Eep. 855. 

[c] Amendment to cure the defect 
permitted. Wright v. McCampbell, 75 
Tex. 644, 13 S. W. 293. 

[d] Effect Upon Subsequent Pur- 
chaser. — (1) A judgment against a 
firm, entered upon the judgment dock- 
et, without setting forth the names 
of the several partners, is without ef- 
fect as a lien, so far as respects sub- 
sequent purchasers and encumbrancers 
without notice. In re York Bank's 
Appeal, 36 Pa. 458. (2) But where 
the judgment is in favor of the part- 
nership, the fact that it fails to state 
the names of the partners does not 
affect the lien, the name of the judg- 
ment debtor being correctly deseribea. 
Dearborn v. Patton, 3 Ore. 420. 

[e] Judgment by default, rendered 
in the name of a partnership, the in- 
dividual names not appearing, reversed 
in Simmons v. Titche Bros., 102 Ala. 



317, 14 So. 786; Green v. Jones, 102 
Ala. 303, 14 So. 630; Burden v. Cross 
& Co., 33 Tex. 685. 

17. Ala. — Simmons v. Titche Bros., 
102 Ala. 317, 14 So. 786. Ark. 
Spaulding Mfg. Co. v. Godbold, 92 Ark. 
63, 121 S. Wi 1063, 135 Am. St. Eep. 
168, 29 L. El. A. (N. S.) 282. 111. 
Gore V. Muhlenburg, 135 111. App. 
525. Ky. — Heavrin v. Lack Malleable 
Iron Co., 153 Ky. 329, 155 S. W. 729. 
Mo.— Fowler v. Williams, 62 Mo. 403; 
Weldon' v. Fisher, 194 Mo. App. 573, 
186 S. W. 1153; Mitchell v. Eailton, 
45 Mo. App. 273; Conrades & Co. v. 
Spink, 38 Mo. App. 309.' N. C— Dan- 
iels v. Eoanoke E. & Lumber Co., 158 
N. C. 418, 74 S. E. 331; Lash v. Ar- 
nold, 53 N. C. 206. Pa. — Morse v. 
Chase & Co., 4 Watts 456; Porter v. 
Cresson, 10 Serg, & E. 257. Tex. 
Houssels V. Coe (Tex. Civ. App.), 159 
S, W. 864. Va.— Pate v. Bacon & Co., 
6 Munf. (20 Va.) 219; Totty's Exr. 
V. Donald & Co., 4 Munf. (18 Va.) 
430. Wis. — Frisk v. Eeigelman, 75 
Wis. 499, 43 N. W. 1117, 44 N. W. 
766), 17 Am. St. Eep. 198; Bennett 
V. Child, 19 Wis. 362, 88 Am. Dee. 
692. 

[a] Objection before verdict neces- 
sary so as (1) to give the parties an 
opportunity to amend. Fowler v. Wil- 
liams, 62 Mo. 403; Mitchell & Bro. 
V. Eailton, 45 Mo. App. 273. (2) After 
verdict the court will presume that 
the firm name is the name of a real 
person. Morse v. Chase & Co., 4 Watts 
(Pa.) 456. 

18. Brawley v. Mitchell, 92 Wis. 
671, 66 N. W. 799. 

19. See swpra, II, D, 1; II, G, 1, 
b, (IV). 

20. Cobble v. Farmers' Bank, 63 
Ohio St. 528, 59 N. B. 221. 

[a] Complia/nce with the statute 
made after the rendition of the judg- 
ment will not validate it. Cobble v. 

Vol. XXI 



PARTNERSHIP 



such failure and unless the point is duly raised the objection is 
waived.^^ 

(II.) After Dissolution. — After the death of a partner pendente lite, 
the partnership being dissolved thereby,^^ it is erroneous to render a 
judgment against the former partnership.^^ Judgment should be 
entered in the name of the surviving partners.^* 

c. Joint and Several.^^ — The liability of partners at common law 
is joint, and in an action against two or more partners, where all 
are served, a verdict or judgment cannot be given against one or 
more of them without the others,^^ unless such others have been dis- 
charged on a plea of infancy or some other personal plea which does 
not go to the discharge of all.^^ But in jurisdictions where the obli- 
gations of the partnership are joint and several,^^ or where the obli- 



Farmers' Bank, 63 Ohio St. 528, 59 
N. E. 221. 

21. See supra, II, G, 2, c. 

22. See supra, II, D, 7, a. 

23. Bowen v. Troj Portable Mill 
Co., 31 Iowa 460; White v. Dillinger, 
50 Okla. 555, 151 Pac. 194. 

[a] The court will award a new 
trial where the judgment has been ren- 
dered against the partnership, one of 
the members of which died pending 
the suit. Bowen v. Troy Portable 
Mill Co., 31 Iowa 460. 

24. Davis v. Davis, 93 Ala. 173, 9 
So. 736. 

25. See generally 15 Standard Pboc. 
81, 88. 

26. CaL — Morgan v. Eighetti, 113 
Cal. xvii, 45 Pac. 260; Curry v. Bound- 
tree,' 51 Cal. 184. Conm. — Champlin v. 
Tilley, 3 Day 303, 5 Fed. Cas. No. 

\2,586. Ga.— Francis v. Diekel & ■ Co., 
68 Ga. 255; Campbell v. Bowen, 49 Ga. 
417; Wooten & Cqj, v. Nail, 18 Ga. 
609. m.— Pettis V. Atkins, 60 111. 
454; Yocum v. Benson, 45 111. 435; 
Gribbin v. Thompson, 28 111. 61; Tol- 
man v. Spaulding, 4 111. 13. la. — Lan- 
sing V. Bever Land Co., 158 Iowa 693, 
138 N. "W. 833; AndCTSon v. "Wilson, 
142 Iowa 158, 120 N. W. 677. Minn. 
Whitney v. Eeese, 11 Minn. 138. Neb. 
Morrissey v. Schindler, 18 Neb. 672, 26 
N. W. 476. N. Y. — Knickerbocker Ice 
Co. V. Theiss, 23 Misc. 625, 52 N. Y. 
Supp. 163; Robertson v. Smith, 18 
Johns. 459, 9 Am. Dec. 227. Ore. 
Bertin v. Mattison, 80 Ore. 354, 157 
Pac. 153; Ah Lep v. Gong Choy, 13 
Ore. 205, 9 Pac. 483. Pa.— Nelson v. 
Lloyd, 9 Watts 22. S. D.— North Star 
Boot & Shoe Co. v. Stebbins, 3 S. D. 
540, 54 N. W. 593. Eng.— Shirreff v. 
Wilks, 1 Bast 47, 102 Eng. Keprint 
19. 

Vol. XXt 



See 15 Standard Peoc. 82, et seq. 

[a] Error Not Cured by Confessing 
Judgment. — A judgment rendered 
against one of several partners can- 
not be cured by the other partners 
coming in and confessing judgment in 
the original action, without the con- 
sent of their co-defendant. Nelson v. 
Lloyd, 9 Watts (Pa.) 22. 

27. See Robertson v. Smith, 18 
Johns. (N. Y.) 459, 9 Am. Dec. 227, and 
15 Standard Pboc. 82. 

[a] If a plea of infancy is sus- 
tained, the judgment should be en- 
tered against the adult partners only. 
Ind. — Kirby v. Cannon, 9 Ind. 371. 
Mass. — Tuttle v. Cooper, 10 Pick. 281; 
Woodward v. Newhall, 1 Pick. 500. 
Va. — Cole V. Pennell, 2 Rand. (23 Va.) 
174. 

28. U. S.— Bibb V. Allen, 149 U. S. 
481, 13 Sup. Ct. 950, 37 L. ed. 819. 
Ala.— Neveps Lumber Co. v. Fields, 151 
Ala." 367, 44 So. 81; Gazz-ani v. Bebee 
&■ Co., 8 Port. 49; Johnson v. Green, 
4 Port. 127. Ark.— Brugnian v. Mc- 
Guire, 32 Ark. 733. CaJ.— Morgan v. 
Bighetti, 113 Cal. xvii, 45 Pac. 260; 
Bailey Loan Co. v. Hall, 110 Cal. 490, 
42 Pac. 962; McNeil v. Kredo, 31 Cal. 
App. 76, 159 Pac. 818. Conn.— Salomon 
V. Hopkins, 61 Conn. 47, 23 Atl. 716; 
Dean v. Savage, 28 Conn. 359. Ga. 
Doody Co. V. Jeffcoat, 127 Ga. 301, 56 
S. E. 421; Ledbetter v. Dean, 82 Ga. 
790, 9 S. E, 720; Maynard & Son v. 
Ponder, 75 Ga. 664; Francis v. Diekel 
& Co., 68 Ga. 255; Wooten & Cc. v. 
Nail, 18 Ga. 609; Crockett & Co. v. 
Garrard & Co., 4 Ga. App. 360, 61 
8. E. 552. Ind.— Pollock v. Glazier, 20 
Ind. 262. la.— Ogle v. Miller, 128 Iowa 
474, 104 N. W. 502; Poole, Gillam & 
Co. V. Hintrager, 60 Iowa 180, 14 N. 
W. 223; Crenshaw v. Wickersham, 15 



PAETNERSHIP 



87 



gation is joint, but the statute allows a recovery against the joint debt- 
ors upon whom service is made,^" a judgment rendered is binding 
upon such members as are served or appear,^" and upon the paVtner- 



lowa 154, a court of equity will not 
disturb such a judgment. Kan. — Sil- 
vers V. Foster, 9 Kan. 56. Ky. — Wil- 
liams V. Eogera, 14 Bush 776. Me. 
Cutts V. Haynes, 41 Me. 560. Mass. 
Taft V. Church, 162 Mass. 527, 39 N. 
E. 283; Wiggin -u. Lewis, 12 Cush. 486. 
Mum. — Bunce v. Newell, 56 Minn. 8, 
57 N. W. 160; Keigher v. Dowlan, 47 
Minn. 574, 50 N. W. 823; Miles v. 
W,ann, 27 Minn. 56, 6 N. W. 417; 
Town V. Washburn, 14 Minn. 268. Mo. 
Hutchinson v. Richmond Safety Gate 
Co., 247 Mo. 71, 152 S. W. 52; Bag- 
nell Timber Co. v. Missouri, K. & T. 
R. Co., 242 Mo. 11, .145 S. W. 469; 
Crews V. Lackland, 67 Mo. 619. Mont. 
Knatz V. Wise, 16 Mont. 555, 41 Pac. 
710; Wells, Fargo & Co. v. Clarkson, 
5 Mont. 336, 5 Pac. 894. Neb.— Mor- 
rissey v. Schindler, 18 Neb. 672, 26 
N. W. 476. Nev. — Conway v. District 
Court, 40 Nev. 395, 164 Pac. 1009. 
N. Y.— Pruyn v. Black, 21 N. T. 300; 
Brumskill v. James, 11 N. Y. 294; 
Alaska Bank & Safe Deposit Co. v. 
Van Wyek, 146 App. Div. 5, 130 N. 
T. Snpp. 563; Lapinsky v. Colish, 61 
Misc. 319, 113 N. T. Supp. 733; 
Knickerbocker Ice Co. v. Theiss, 23 
Misc. 625, 52 N. Y. Supp. 163; Hand 
V. Rogers, 11 Misc. 623, 32 N. Y. 
Supp. 920, 66 N. Y. St. 346; Parker 
V. Jackson, 16 Barb. 33; Claflin v. 
Butterly, 2 Abb. Pr. 446, 5 Duer 327. 
W. C— Neil V. Childs, 32 N. C. 195. 
Ore. — Bertin v. Mattison, 80 Ore. 354, 
157 Pac. 153; Ah Lep v. Gong Choy, 
13 Ore. 205, 9 Pac. 483. S. C— Bull 
V. Lambson, 5 S. C. 288. S. D. — North 
Star Boot & Shoe Co. v. Stebbins, 3 
S. D. 540, 54 . N. W. 593. Tex. 
Glasscock v. Price, 92 Tex. 271, 47 
S. W. 965. Utah. — Brown v. Pickard, 
4 Utah 292, 9 Pac. 573, 11 Pac. 512. 
Vt.— People's Nat. Bank v. Hall, 76 
Vt. 280, 56 Atl. 1012. Wis.— Little v. 
Staples, 98 Wis. 344, 73 N. W. 653. 
29. See generally the statutes and 
the following: U. S. — Sugg v. Thorn- 
ton, 132 U. S. 524, 10 Sup. Ct. 163, 
33 L. ed. 447 (Texas); D'Arcy v. 
Ketehum, 11 How. 165, 13 L. ed. 648; 
Lippineott v. Shaw Carriage Co., 25 
Fed. 577. Colo. — Sawyer v. Armstrong, 
23 Colo. 287, 47 Pac. 391. lU.— Flem- 
ing V. Ross, 128 111. App. 265, judg- 



ment aifirmed, 225 HI. 149, 80 N. E. 
92; Gormley v. Hartray, 105 111. App. 
625, 92 III. App. 115; Kling v. Taylor, 
90 111. App. 165. Ky.— Nichols & Co. 
V. Burton, 5 Bush 320. Mass. — Willock 
V. WilsoA, 178 Mass. 68, 59 N. E. 
757,. action on foreign judgment 
against both partners. Nev. — Davis v. 
Cook, 9 Nev. 134. Okla.— Cox v. Gilla 
Hdw. & Iron Co., 8 Okla. 483, 58 Pac. 
645; Symns Grocer Co. v. Burnham, 
6 Okla. 618, 52 Pac. 918. Ore.— North 
Pacific Lumb. Co. v. Spore, 44 Ore. 
462. 75 Pac. 890. E. I. — Nathanson v. 
Spitz, 19 E. L 70, 31 Atl. 690. S. 0. 
Pope Mfg. Co. V. Welch, 55 S. C. 528, 
33 S. E. 787. Tex. — Frank v. Tatum, 
87 Tex. 204, 25 S. W. 409. See Bur- 
nett V. Sullivan, 58 Tex. 535; Kings- 
land & Douglass Mfg. Co. v. Mitchell 
(Tex. Civ. App.), 36 S. W. 757. Wash. 
McCoy V. Bell, 1 Wash. 504, 20 Pac. 
595. Wis.— Brawley v. Mitchell, 92 
Wis.- 671, 66 N. W. 799; Blackburn 
V. Sweet, 38 Wis. 578; Fowler v. Bail- 
ley, 14 Wis. 125. 

30. XT. S.— Sugg V. Thornton, 132 
TJ. S. 524, 10 Supi Ct. 163, 33 L. ed. 
447; D'Arcy v. Ketohum, 11 How. 165, 
13 L. ed. 648; Eomona Oolitic Stono 
Co. V. Bolger, 179 Fed. 979 (Pennsyl- 
vania) ; Lippineott v. Shaw Carriage 
Co., 25 Fed. 577. Ala. — Ladiga Saw- 
Mill Co. V. Smith, 78 Ala. 108. Cal. 
Alpers V. Schammel, 75 Cal. 590, 17 
Pac. 708; Davidson v. Knox, 67 Cal. 
143, 7 Pac. 413. Colo.- Blythe v. 
Cordingly, 20 Colo. App. 508, 80 Pac. 
495; Ellsberry v. Block, 28 Colo. 477, 
65 Pac. 629; Sawyer v. Armstrong, 23 
Colo. 287, 47 Pac. 391; Adamson v. 
Bergen, 15 Colo. App. 396, 62 Pac. 
629; Peabody v. Oleson, 15 Colo. App. 
346, 62 Pac. 234. Fla.— Florida Brew., 
Co. V. Sendoya, 74 So. 799; Thomas 
V. Nathan, 65 Fla. 386, 62 So. 206; 
First National Bank v. Greig, 43 Fla. 
412, 31 So. 239. Ga.— Cheshire v. Mil- 
burn Wagon Co., 89 Ga. 249, 15 S. B. 
311; Clayton v. Roberts, 84 Ga. 149, 
10 S. B. 621; Ells v. Bone, 71 Ga. 
466; Printup Bros. & Co. v. Turner, 
65 Ga. 71; Fincher v. Hanson, 12 Ga. 
App. 608, 77 S. E. 1068; Denton Bros. 
V. Hannah, 12 Ga. App. 494, 77 S. E. 
672; Warren Brick Co. v. Lagarde 
Lime & Stone Co., 12 Ga. App. 58, 

Vol. XXI 



88 



PABTNER8EIP 



ship assets ;^^ at least where the partnership is a legal entity and the 



76 S. B. 761; Guy v. Kaulman, 11 Ga. 
App. 350, 75 8. B. 269; Hollister Bros. 
V. Bluthenthal, 9 Ga. App. 176, 70 S. B. 
970; Lamar-Eankin Drug Co. v. Cope- 
land, 7 Ga. Appi 567, 67 So. 703; Grif- 
fin V. Colonial Bank, 7 Ga. App. 126, 
66 8. B. 382. 111. — 8herburne v. Hyde, 
185 111. 580, 57 N. B. 776; Gormley 
V. Hartray, 92 111. App. 115; Kling v. 
Taylor, 90 111. App. 165. la. — ^Lansing 
V. Bever Land Co., 158 Iowa 693, 138 
N. W. 833. La,.— Grieff v. Kirk & Co., 
15 La. Ann. 320. Md. — Fersner v. 
Bradley & Co., 87 Md. 488, 40 Atl. 
58. Mass.— Willook v. Wilson, 178 
Mass. 68, 59 N. E. 757. Mo.— Kneis- 
ley Lumber Co. v. Stoddard Co., 113 
Mo. App. 306, 88 8. W. 774. Nev. 
Davis V. Cook, 9 Nev. 134; Plannery 
V. Anderson, 4 Nev. 437. N. M. 
Lewinson v. First Nat. Bank, 11 N. M. 
510, 70 Pae. 567. N. Y.— Latz v. 
Blumenthal, 50 Misc. 407, 100 N. Y. 
Supp. 527. N". C— Daniel v. Bethell, 
167 N. C. 218, 83 S. B. 307. N. D. 
Goldstein v. Peter Fox Sons Co., 22 
N. D. 636, 135 N. W. 180, 40 L. E. 
A. (N. S.) 566. ~ Okla.— Cox v. Gille 
Hdw. & Iron Co., 8 Okla. 483, 58 Pae. 
645. Ore. — First Nat. Bank v. Manaasa, 
80 Ore. 53, 150 Pae. 258; North 
Pacific Lumb. Co. v. Spore, 44 Ore. 
462, 75 Pae. 890. Pa.— Walsh v. Kirby, 
228 Pa. 194, 77 Atl. 452; Cover v. 
Brown, Sutter & Co., 7 Pa. Dist. 19. 
R. I. — Nathanson v. Spitz, 19 E. I. 
70, 31 Atl. 690. S. C— Pierce v. Yarn, 
Byrd & Co., 76 S. C. 359, 57 S. B. 
184; Pope Mfg. Co. v. Welch, 55 S. C. 
528, 33 S. B. 787; Simonds v. Speed, 
6 Eieh. L. 390. Tex. — ^Frank v. Tatum, 
87 Tex. 204, 25 S. W. 409; Sanger 
Bros. V. Overmier, 64 Tex. 57; Hedges 
V. Armistead, 60 Tex. 276; Alexander 
V. Stern, 41 Tex. 193; Slaughter v. 
American Baptist Publication Society 
(Tex. Civ. App.), 150 8. W. 224. 
Wash.— McCoy v. Bell, 1 Wash. 504, 
20 Pao. 595. Wis.— Brawley v. Mitch- 
ell, 92 Wis. 671, 66 N. W. 799; Black- 
burn V. Sweet, 38 Wis. 578. 

[a] Several Judgment Upon Joint 
Contract. — In a suit against partners 
upon a joint contract, one being resi- 
dent the other a non-resident, a sev- 
eral judgment may be rendered against 
the resident served with process. 
Moore v. Bates, 79 Ky. 282. 

Variance by proof of individual 
"iability, see supra, 11, H, 2. 

Vol, XXI 



31. U. S.— Sugg V. Thornton, 132 IT. 
S. 524, 10 Sup. Ct. 163, 33 L. ed. 447; 
D'Arey v. Ketchum, 11 How. 165, 13 
L. ed. 648; Lippincott v. Shaw Car- 
riage Co., 25 Fed. 577. Ala. — ^Ladiga 
Saw-Mill Co. V. Smith, 78 Ala. 108. 
Colo. — Ellsberry v. Block, 28 Colo. 
477, 65 Pae. 629; Sawyer v. Armstrong, 
23 Colo. 287, 47 Pae. 391; Blythe v. 
Cordingly, 20 Colo. App. 508, 80 Pae. 
495; Adamaon v. Bergen, 15 Colo. App. 
396, 62 Pae. 629; Peabody v. Oleson, 
15 Colo. App. 346, 62 Pao. 234. Fla. 
Florida Brewing Co. v. Sendoya, 74 
So. 799; Thomas v. Nathan, 65 Fla. 
386, 62 So. 206; First National Bank 
V. Greig, 43 Fla. 412, 31 So. 239. 
Ga. — Cheshire v. Milburn Wagon Co., 
89 Ga. 249, 15 S. B. 311; Clayton v. 
Eoberta, 84 Ga. 149, 10 S. E. 621; 
Ells V. Bone, 71 Ga. 466; Printup Bros. 
& Co. V. Turner, 65 Ga. 71; Fineher 
V. Hanson, 12 Ga. App. 608, 77 S. B. 
1068; Denton Bros. v. Hannah, 12 Ga. 
App. 494, 77 S. E. 672; Warren Brick 
Co. V. Lagarde Lime & Stone Co., 12 
Ga. App. 58, 76 8. E. 761; Guy v. Kaul- 
man, 11 Ga. App. 350, 75 8. E. 269; 
Hollister Bros. v. Bluthenthal, 9 Ga. 
App. 176, 70 S. E. 970; Lamar-Eankin 
Drug Co. V. Gopeland, 7 Ga. App. 567, 
67 So. 703. la. — Lansing v. Bever 
Land Co., 158 Iowa 693, 138 N. W. 
833. Mich. — Eiekman v. Eiekman, 180 
Mich. 224, 146 N. W. 609, Ann. Gas. 
1915C, 1237. Nev.— Davia v. Cook, 9 
Nev. 134; Flannery v. Anderaon, 4 Nev. 
437; Whitmore v^ Shiverick, 3 Nev. 
288. N. M. — Lewinson v. First Nat. 
Bank, 11 N. M. 510, 70 Pae. 567. 
N. y.— Latz V. Blumenthal, 50 Misc. 
407, 100 N. Y. Supp. 527; Maneely 
V. Mayera, 43 Misc. 380, 87 N. Y. 
Supp. 471. N. C— Daniel v. Bethell, 
167, N. C. 218, 83 S. B. 307. N. D. 
Goldstein v. Fox Sons Co., 22 N. D. 
636, 135 N. W. 180, 40 L. E. A. (N. 
S.) 566. Okla.— Cox v. Gille Hdw. & 
Iron Co., 8 Okla. 483, 58 Pae. 645. 
Ore.— First Nat. Bank v. Manaasa, 80 
Ore. 53, 150 Pae. 258. Pa.— Walsh v. 
Kirby, 228 Pa. 194, 77 Atl. 452. E. I. 
Nathanson v. Spitz, 19 E. I. 70, 31 
Atl. 690. S. O. — Pierce v. Yarn, Byrd 
& Co., 76 8. C. 359, 57 S. E. 184; 
Pope Mfg. Co. V. Welch, 55 S. G. 528, 
33 S. E. 787; Simonds v. Speed, 6 Eich. 
L. 390. Tex.— Frank v. Tatum, 87 Tex. 
204, 25 8. W. 409; Sanger Bros. v. 
Overmier, 64 Tex. 57; Alexander v. 



PARTNERSHIP 



89 



judgment is against it as such.'^ 

Ex DeUcto Actions. — The liability in tort actions being joint and 
several, judgment may be rendered against those shown to be liable.^^ 

K. Enforcement op Judgment.'* — 1. Against What Property, 
a. In GeneraV^ — The partnership property ,'° and that of such 
members as have appeared or been served,'^ may be taken in satisf ac- 



Stern, 41 Tex. 193; Slaughter v. Amer- 
ican Baptist Pub. Society (Tex. Civ. 
App.), 150 S. W. 224; State v. Cloudt 
(Tex. Civ. App.), 84 S. W. 415; Scalfi 
& Co. V. State (Tex. Civ. App.), 73 
S. W. 441; Owen v. Kuhn, Loeb & 
Co. (Tex. Civ, App.), 72 S. W. 432. 
Wash.— McCoy v. Bell, 1 "Wash. 504, 20 
Pae. 595. Wla. — Brawley v. Mitchell, 
92 Wis. 671, 66 N. W. 799; Black- 
burn V. Sweet, 38 Wis. 578. 

32. Sugg V. Thornton, 132 U. S. 
524, 10 Sup. Ct. 163, 33 L. ed. 447. 
See Tay, Brooks & Backus v. Hawley, 
39 Cal. 93, strongly intimating that 
the interest of the partner not served 
is not bound in spite of the statute, 
on constitutional grounds. 

33. Ga.— Phillips v. Wait, 105 6a. 
848, 32 S. E. 647; Austin v. Appling, 
88 Ga. 54, 13 S. E. 955. 111.— Swenson 
V. Erickson, 90 111. App. 358. N. Y. 
In re Blackford, 35 App. Div. 330, 54 
N. Y. Supp. 972. 

See 15 Standard Proc. 83. 

34. See generally the title "Judg- 
ments and Decrees, Enforcement of." 

35. Attachment of partnership prop- 
erty, see supra, II, B, and 3 Standard 
Peoc. 323. 

36. IT. S. — ^Kalya Market Co. v. Ar- 
mour & Co., 102 Fed. 530; Inbusch 
V. Farwell, 1 Black 566, 17 L. ed. 
188. Ga.— Ells v. Bone, 71 Ga. 466. 
Oolo.— Craig v. Smith, 10 Colo. 220, 15 
Pae. 337; Dessauer v. Koppin, 3 Colo. 
App. 115, 32 Pac. 182. la. — Lansing 
V. Bever Land Co., 158 Iowa 693, 138 
N. W. 833; Capital Food Co. v. Globe 
Coal Co., 142 Iowa 134, 120 N. W. 
704; Anderson v. Wilson, 142 Iowa 
158, 120 N. W. 677; Harford, Thayer 
& Co. V. Street, 46 Iowa 594. Kan. 
Stout V. Baker, 32 Kan. 113, 4 Pac. 
141; Bead v. Jeffries, 16 Kan. 534. 
Mich. — ^Brooks v. Mclntyre, 4 Mich. 
316. N. M. — Lewinson v. First Nat. 
Bank, 11 N. M. 510, 70 Pac. 567. N. Y. 
Hofferberth v. Nash, 117 App. Div. 
284, 102 N. Y. Supp. 317; Sogers v. 
Tngersoll, 103 App. Div. 490, 93 N. Y. 
Supp. 140, aHlrmed, 185 N. Y. 592, 78 
N. E. 1111; Latz V. Blumenthal, 50 



Misc. 407, 100 N. Y. Supp. 527, af- 
firmed, 116 App. Div. 914, 101 N. Y, 
Supp. 1128; Staiger v. Theiss, 19 Misc, 
170, 43 N. Y. Supp. 292; Souls v. Cor 
nell, 15 App. Div. 161, 44 N. Y. Supp, 
194; Lahey v. Kingon, 13 Abb. Pr 
192, 22 How. Pr. 209. Nev.— Plan 
nery v. Anderson, 4 Nev. 437. N. 0. 
Daniel v. Bethell, 167 N. C. 218, 83 
S. E. 307. Okla. — Heaton v. Sohaeffer, 
34 Okla. 631, 126 Pac. 797, 43 L. E. 
A. .(N. S.) 540; Symms Grocer Co. v. 
Burnham, 6 Okla. 618, 52 Pac. 918. 
Ore. — ^North Pacific Lumb. Co. v. 
Spore, 44 Ore. 462, 75 Pac. 890. Pa. 
Cover V. Brown, Sutter & Co., 7 Pa. 
Dist. 19. S. C— Pope Mfg. Co. v. 
Welch, 55 S. C. 528, 33 S. E. 787; 
Whitfield V. Hovey, 30 S. C. 117, 8 
S. E 840. Tex. — Geo. Scalfi & Co. v. 
State, 96 Tex. 559, 31 Tex. Civ. App. 
671, 73 S. W. 441; Blumenthal v. 
Youngblood, 24 Tex. Civ. App. 266, 
59 S. W. 290. Wis. — Brawley v. Mitch- 
ell, 92 Wis. 671, 66 N. W. 799; Fowler 
V. Bailley, 14 Wis. 125. 

37. Xt. S. — Ealya Market Co. v. Ar- 
mour & Co., 102 Fed. 530. Colo.— Craig 
V. Smith, 10 Colo. 220, 15 Pac. 337. 
Ga. — Ells V. Bone, 71 Ga. , 466. la. 
Anderson v. Wilson, 142 Iowa 158, 120 
N. W. 677; Harford, Thayer & Co. 
V. Street, 46 Iowa 594. Kan. — Stout 
V. Baker, 32 Kan. 113, 4 Pac. 141; 
Read v. Jeffries, 16 Kan. 534. N. M. 
Lewinson v. First Nat. Bank, 11 N. M. 
510, 70 Pac. 567. N. Y.— Hofferberth 
V. Nash, 117 App. Div., 284, 102 N. Y. 
Supp. 317; Latz v. Blumenthal, 50 
Misc. 407, 300 N. Y. Supp. 527; Staiger 
V. Theiss, 19 Misc. 170, 43 N. Y. Supp. 
292; Lahey v. Kingon, 13 Abb. Pr. 
192, 22 How. Pr. 209. N. C— Daniel 
V. Bethell, 167 N. C. 218, 83 S. B. 
307. Okla. — Heaton v. Sehaeffer, 34 
Okla. 631, 126 Pac. 797, 43 L. E. A. 
W. S.) 540. Ore. — First Nat. Bank v. 
Manassa, 80 Ore. 53, 150 Pac. 258; 
North Pacific Lumb. Co. v. Spore, 44 
Ore. 462. 75 Pac. 890. Pa. — Cover v. 
Brown, Sutter & Co., 7 Pa. Dist. 19, 
S. C— Pope Mfg. Co. V. Welch, 55 
S. C. 528, 33 S. E. 787. Tex.— Sealfi 

Vol. XXI 



so 



PABTNEBS3IP 



tion of a judgment against the firm, except that where the partnership 
alone is sued as an entity the judgment recovered can be enforced 
only against partnership assets.^* Where a judgment is rendered 
against a firm upon the confession of less than all the partners,'^ it is 
enforceable only against the firm property and the property of the 
partners making the confession.*" 

In an action against an individual partner his interest in the^ partner- 
ship property is subject to any judgment recovered.*^ 

b. Homestead and Exemptions.*' — In many states, undivided 
partnership property is not, as against a creditor of the firm, exempt 
from levy on attachment or execution,*^ but other courts more liber- 



& Co. V. State (Tex. Civ. App.), 73 
S. W. 441. W. Va.— Lee v Hassett, 
41 W Va. 368, 23 S. B. 559. Wis. 
Brawley v. Mitchell, 92 Wis. 671, 66 
N. W. 799. 

[a] That the creditor need not ex- 
haust the partnership before (1) levy- 
ing upon the separate property of a 
partner see Ala. — Clark v. Johnson, 7 
Ala. App. 507, 61 So. 34. N. J. 
National Bank of the Metropolis v. 
Sprague, 20 N. J. Eq. 13. Tex.— Webb 
V. Gregory, 49 Tex. Civ. App. 282, 
108 S. W. 478. (2) To the contrary 
see Ala. — Goldsmith v. Eichold, 94 Ala. 
116, 10 So. 80, 33 Am. St. Eep. 97. 
Colo.. — Breene v. Booth, 3 Colo. App. 
470, 33 Pae. 1007. Miss.— Dahlgren v. 
Duncan, 7 Smed. & M. 280. Neb. 
Leafeh v. Milburn Wagon Co., 14 Nob. 
106, 15 N. W. 232. N. Y.— Seligman 
V. Friedlander, 199 N. Y. 373, 92 N. E. 
1047; Teller v. Gerry, 30 Misc. 126, 

61 N. Y. Supp. 864. R. I.— Pearce v. 
Cooke, 13 B. I. 184. Vt.— Bardwell v. 
Perry, 19 Vt. 292, 47 Am. Dec. 687. 

[b] Property of partners not served 
and who do not appear, is not liable 
on the judgment. U. S. — D'Arcy v. 
Ketehum, 11 How. 165, 13 L. ed. 648. 
Fla. — Thomas v. Nathan, 65 Fla. 386, 

62 So. 206; First Nat. Bank v. Greig, 
43 Fla. 412, 31 So. 239. Ga.— Ells v. 
Bone, 71 Ga. 466; Flowers v. Strick- 
land, 10 Ga. App. 739, 73 S. B. 1092. 
la. — Lansing v. Bever Land Co., 158 
Iowa 693, 138 N. W. 833. Mass. 
Phelps V. Brewer, 9 Gush. 890, 57 Am. 
Dec. 56. Mich. — Brooks v. Mclntyre, 
4 Mich. 316. Miss. — Mitchell v. Greeu- 
wald, 43 Miss. 167. N. Y.— Latz v. 
Blumenthal, 50 Misc. 407, 100 N. Y. 
Supp. 527. N. C— Daniel v. Bethell, 
167 N. C. 218, 83 S. E. 307. Okla. 
Heaton v. Schaeffer, 34 Okla. 631, 126 
Pac. 797, 43 L. R. A. (N. S.) 540; 
Symns Grocer Co. v. Burnham, 6 Okla. 

Vol. XXI 



618, 52 Pac. 918. Pa.— Cover v. Brown, 
Sutter & Co., 7 Pa. Dist. 19. Tex. 
Glasscock v. Price, 92 Tex. 271, 47 S. 
W. 965; Sanger Bros. v. Overmier, 64 
Tex. 57; Burnett V. Sullivan, 58 Tex. 
535. 

38. Ala. — Ratehford v. Covington 
County Stock Co., 172 Ala. 461, 55 
So. 806; Yarbrough & Co. v. Bush & 
Co., 69 Ala. 170. la. — Anderson v. 
Wilson, 142 Iowa 158, 120 N. W. 677; 
Markham v. Buckingham, 21 Iowa 494, 
89 Am. Dec. 590. Neb. — Herron v. 
Cole Bros., 25 Neb. 692, 41 N. W. 
765; Winters v. Means, 25 Neb. 241, 
41 N. W. 157, 13 Am. St. Rep. 489. 

39. As to entry of judgment by con- 
fession of one partner, see 14 Stand- 
ard Peoc. 798. 

40. La.— Grant v. Hyatt, 22 La. 
Ann. 411. Ore. — Richardson v. Fuller, 
2 Ore. 179. Pa.— Ross v. Howell, 84 
Pa. 129; Hershey, Schwenk & Co. v. 
Fulmer, 3 Pa. Co. Ct. 442, and cases 
cited. Wash.— Bank of Shelton v. Wil- 
ley, 7 Wash. 535, 35 Pac. 411. 

41. See 15 Standard Proc. 862, and 
the following cases: Dangler's Appeal, 
125 Pa. 12, 17 Atl. 184; Brown, Jan- 
sou & Co. V. Hutchinson & Co,, 64 
L. J. Q. B. 619, 73 L. T. Rep. N. ' S. ' 
8, 14 Reports 485, 43 Wkly. Rep. 545. 

42. See generally the title "Home- 
steads and Exemptions." 

As to exemptio.ns from levy, gen- 
erally, see 16 Standard Pkoc. 24, et 
seq. 

43. U. S.—In re Turnock & Sons, 
230 Fed. 985, 145 C. C. A. 179; Craw- 
ford V. Sternberg, 220 Fed. 73, 135 
C. C. A. 641 (Arkansas); In re Bundy 
& Co., 218 Fed. 711 (Mississippi); 
In re Abrams, 193 Fed. 271 (South 
Dakota); Jennings v. Stannus & Son, 
191 Fed. 347, 112 C. C. A. 91 (Wash- 
ington); In re Novak, 150 Fed. 602 
(South Dakota) ; Short v. McGruder, 



PA&TNEBSmP 



01 



ally construe their exemption statutes as extending the right to the 
partners, to claim, during the existence of the partnership, an in- 
dividual exemption in the partnership property, when taken under 
legal process for partnership debts.** In some jurisdictions, while 



22 Fed. 46 (Virginia) ; In re Handlin, 
3 Bill. 290, 11 Fed. Cas. No. 6,018; 
In re Smith, 2 Hughes 307, 22 Fed. 
Cas. No. 12,979; In re Price, 6 N. B. 
E. 400, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 11,410, Mary- 
land. Ala. — Aiken v. Steiner, 98 Ala. 
S55, 13 So. 510, 39 Am. St. Eep. 58; 
Schlapbaek v. Long, 90 Ala. 525, 8 
So. 113; Levy & Co. v. Williams, 79 
Ala. 171; Giovanni v. First Nat. Bank, 
55 Ala. 305, 28 Am. Eep. 723, over- 
ruling previous cases. Ark. — Farmers' 
Union Gin & Mill. Co. v. Seitz, 93 
Ark. 329, 124 S. W. 780 (partnership 
property must be segregated before 
subject to claim of exemption); Porch 
V. Arkansas Mill. Co., 65 Ark. 40, 45 
S. W. 51, 67 Am. St. Eep. 895; Eieh- 
ardson v. Adler, Goldman & Co., 46 
Ark. 43. Cal. — Cowan v. Creditors, 77 
Cal. 403, 19 Pac. 755, 11 Am. St. Eep. 
294. Colo. — McCrimmon v. Linton, 4 
Colo. App. 420; 36 Pac. 300. Dak. 
Bates V. Callender, 3 Dak. 256, 16 N. W. 
506, statute providing that the partner- 
ship can claim an exemption does not 
extend to allowing the individuals com- 
posing the firm to claim a several ex- 
emption in the undivided partnership 
property. Fla. — Lee v. Bradley Fertili- 
zer Co., 44 Fla. 787, 33 So. 456; State ex 
reZ. Peck v. Bowden, 18 Fla. 17. HI. 
Wills V. Downs, 38 111. App. 269; Fin- 
gerhuth v. Lachmann, 37 HI. App. 
489. Ind.— Goudy v. Werbe, 117 Ind. 
154, 19 N. E. 764, 3 L. E. A. 114; 
Ex parte Hopkins, 104 Ind. 157, 2 N. 
E. 587; State ex ret Talbott v. Em- 
mons, 99 Ind. 452; Love v. Blair, 72 
Ind. 281; Sharpe v. Baker, 51 Ind. 
App. 547, 96 N. B. 627, 99 N. E. 44. 
JnA. Ter. — Hart v. Hiatt, 2 Ind. Ter. 
245, 48 S. W. 1038. Kan.— Guptil v. 
McFee, 9 Kan. 30. Ky. — Green v. 
Taylor, 98 Ky. 330, 32 S. W. 945, 56 
Am. St. Eep. 375; Elkins v. Briscoe, 
32 Ky. L. Eep. 197, 105 S. W. 412. 
Me. — Thurlow v. Warren, 82 Me. 164, 
19 Atl. 158, 17 Am. St. Eep.- 472. 
Mass. — Pond v. Kimball, 101 Mass. 
105. Minn. — Baker v. Sheehan, 29 
Minn. 235, 12 N. W. 704. Mc— State 
ex ret Billingsley v. Spencer, 64 Mo. 
355, 27 Am. Eep. 244; State ex rel. 
Hinde v. United States Fidelity & 
Guaranty Co., 135 Mo. App. 160, 115 



S. W. 1081; FulkB V. Pruitt, 65 Mo. 
App. 154. Neb. — Miller v. Waite, 59 
Neb. 319, 80 N. W. 907; Wise v. Frey, 

7 Neb. 134, 29 Am. Eep. 380 (diviston 
made by partners after levy made 
will not permit them to claim exemp- 
tion); People ex rel. Till v. Eoy, 3 Neb. 

261. N. H.— Bateman v. Edgerly, 69 
N. H. 244, 45 Atl. 95, 76 Am. St. 
Eep. 162; Peaslee v. Sanborn, 68 N. H. 

262, 44 Atl. 384. N. M.— Im re Spitz, 

8 N. M. 622, 45 Pac. 1122, 34 L. E. 
A. 604. Ohio.— Gaylord, Son & Co. 
V. Imhoff & Co., 26 Ohio St. 317, 20 
Am. Eep. 762. Pa. — Clegg v. Houston, 
1 Phila. 352. S. C.—Ex parte Karish, 
32 S. C. 437, 11 S. E. 298, 17 Am. 
St. Eep. 865. Tenn.— Gill v. Latti- 
more, 9 Lea 381 (partners cannot di- 
vide property amongst themselves 
after the firm becomes insolvent and 
then claim exemption) ; Spiro v. Pax- 
ton, 3 Lea 75, 31 Am. Eep. 630. Wis. 
Bong V. Parmentier, 87 Wis.' 129, 58 
N. W. 243; Eussell v. Lennon, 39 Wis. 
570, 20 Am. Eep. 60 (^oiKrruUng Gil- 
mau V. Williams, 7 Wis. 329, 76 Am. 
Dec. 76); Wright v. Pratt, 31 Wis. 
99. 

44. U. S.— 7n re Camp, 91 Fed. 745 
(Georgia); In re Eichardson, 11 N. B. 
E. 114, 20 Fed. Cas. No. 11,775; In re 
Eupp, 4 N. B. R. 95, 21 Fed. Cas. 
No. 12,141 (Ohio); In re McKercher, 
8 N. B. E. 409 (Dakota Terr.); In re 
Young, 3 N. B. E. 440, 30 Fed. Cas. 
No. 18,148, Missouri. Ga. — Hahn v. 
Allen, 93 Ga. 612, 20 S. E. 74; Blanch- 
,ard, Williams & Co. v. Paschal, 68 Ga. 
32, 45 Am. Eep. 474, severance of 
firm property properly made after levy 
made. La. — Harrison & Co. v. Mitchell, 
13 La. Ann. 260; Farmers & Merchants' 
Bank v. Franklin, 1 La. Ann. 393. 
Mich — McCoy v. Brennan, 61 Mich. 362, 
28 N. W. 129, 1 Am. St. Eep. 589; Chip- 
man V. Kellogg, 60 Mich. 438, 27 N. 
W. 592; Skinner v. Shannon, 44 Mich. 
86, 6 N. W. 108, 38 Am. Eep. 232. 
N. Y.— Stewart v. Brown, 37 N. Y. 
350, 93 Am. Dec. 578 (wherein the 
firm claimed the exemption) ; Eadcliff 
V. Wood, 25 Barb. (N. Y.) 52, where- 
in the levy was upon a horse used 
in carrying on the firm business. The 
execution was for the separate debt 

Vol. XZI 



92 



PABTNEBSHIP 



the courts will not allow the partners to claim an exemption out of 
partnership property where the execution is issued upon a judgment 
for the deht of the firm,*^ they will allow one partner to claim his ex- 
emption out of his share of the partnership property where the execu- 
tion is based on a judgment against him for his individual debt,*" 
but other courts adhere strictly to the rule that the property must 
be individually owned before an exemption therein can be claimed.*^ 

Homestead. —Partners have no right of homestead in partnership 
property.** 

2. Writ of Execution.*^ — a. Generally. — The issuance of exe- 
cution follows the general rules elsewhere treated.^" 



of the partner claiming the exemption, 
and the levy was on his interest only. 
N. C— Evans v. Bryan, 95 N. C. 174, 
59 Am. Eep. 233; State ex rel. Scott 
V. Kenan, 94 N. C. 296. Tex. — St. Louis 
Type Foundry v. International Live- 
stock J. Print. & Pub. Co., 74 Tex. 
651, 12 S. W. 842, 15 Am. St. Rep. 
870. 

[a] Dormant partner may claim 
exemption out of the firm property. 
McCoy V. Brennan, 61 Mich. 362, 28 
N. W. 129, 1 Am. St. Eep. 589. 

[b] With Consent of Partners. 
An exemption may be allowed to one 
partner out of partnership funds. Pen- 
nell f. Eobinson, 164 N. C. 257, 80 S. 
B. 417, Ann. Gas. 1915D, 77; Rich- 
ardson V. Redd, 118 N. C. 677, 24 S. B. 
420; Stout V. McNeill, 98 N. C. 1, 3 
S. E. 915; State ex rel. Scott v. Kenan, 
rf4 N. C. 296; Allen & Co. v. Qrissom, 
90 N. C. 90; Burns v. Harris, 67 N. C. 
140; O 'Gorman v. Fink, 57 Wis. 649, 
15 N. W. 771, 46 Am. Eep. 58. See 
contra, Gaylord, Son & Co. v. ImhofE 
& Co., 26 Ohio St. 317, 20 Am. Eep. 
762, which sharply criticizes such a 
doctrine. 

[c] Consent of administrator of a 
deceased pactaier is necessary before 
the surviving partners are entitled to 
exemption from execution on a judg- 
ment against the partnership. , Eich- 
ardson v. Eedd, 118 N. C. 677, 24 S. E. 
420. 

45. See supra, this section. 

46. Ky. — Southern Jellico Coal Co. 
V. Smith, -105 Ky. 769, 49 S. W. 807. 
ITeb.— Wise v. Frey, 7 Neb. 134, 29 
Am. Eep. 380. S. C. — Moyer v. Drum- 
mond, 32 S. C. 165, 10 S. B. 952, 17 
Am. St. Eep. 850, 7 L. R. A. 747. 
Wash. — Dennis v. Kass & Co., 11 Wash. 
353, 39 Pac. 656, 48 Am. St. Eep. 
880. 

Vol. XXI 



I 47. Colo. — McCrimmon v. Linton, 4 
Colo. App. 420, 36 Pac. 300. Fla. 
State ex rel. Peck v. Bowden, 18 Fla. 

I 17. Ind.— Love v. Blair, 72 Ind. 281. 
And see State ex rel. Talbott v. Em- 

j mons, 99 Ind. 452. Mo.— State ex rel. 
Hinde v. United States) Fidelity & 
Guaranty Co., 135 Mo. App. 160, 115 
S. W. 1081. 

48. U., S.— Short v. McGruder, 22 
Fed. 46, Virginia. Cal. — Kingsley v. 
Kingsley, 39 Cal. 665. lU.— Trow- 
bridge V. Cross, 117 111. 109, 7 N. E. 
347. la. — Hewitt v. Eankin, 41 Iowa 
35. Miss. — McGrath v. Sinclair, 55 
Miss. 89. Nev. — Ehodes v. Williams, 12 
Nev. 20. 

Contra. — Hunnicutt v. Summey, 63 
Ga. 586; Newton v. Summey, 59 Ga. 
397; Harris v. Visscher, 57 Ga. 229. 

Compare. — Moyer v. "Drummond, 32 
S. C. 165, 10 S. E. 952, 17 Am. St. 
Rep. 850, 7 L. R. A. 747 (wherein 
a homestead was allowed to the execu- 
tion debtor out of his interest in the 
firm assets as against his individual 
creditors), and Ex parte Kariah, 32 
S. C. 437, 11 S. B. 298, 17 Am. St. 
Rep. 865, wherein it was held that the 
partner could have a homestead ex- 
emption out of such partnership prop- 
erty as remained after the partnership 
debts were paid. 

49. Property subject to, see supra, 
II, K, 1. 

50. See generally 15 Standard Proc. 
721. 

[a] Time of Issuance. — On a judg- 
ment recovered against two partners, 
where one only appears and is served, 
he may, in the absence of collusion, 
consent to the issuance of an execu- 
tion thereon before the lapse of the 
statutory stay period. Anonymous, 2 
HiU (N. Y.) 878. 



PAETNEBSHIP 



93 



b. Form, and Sufficiency of Writ.^^ — The rule that the writ of 
execution must conform to, the jijdgment rendered.^^ applies in part- 
nership cases.^^ In jurisdictions where judgment is entered against 
all the partners, even though some are not served,"* the execution 
issued thereon must be in form against all the defendants,"" but it 
should command the officer to levy the same upon the interests of the 
defendant or defendants in the partnership property,"' and the stat- 
ute may require the attorney to indorse upon the execution a direc- 
tion to the sheriff containing the name of each defendant not sum- 
moned and restricting the enforcement of the execution to the partner 
served."' 

c. Levy."- — (I.) Manner of Making. — The levy should be made 
only in the manner provided for by the statute."® If upon the inter- 
est of a partner in partnership property it is made by leaving a no- 
tice with one or more of the partners,*" or with a clerk of the part- 



51. See generally 15 Standard Peoc. 
790. 

52. See 15 Standaed Peoc. 811. 

53. Ala. — Simmons v. Sharpe, 148 
Ala. 217, 42 So. 441; DoUins v. Pollock, 
89 Ala. 351, 7 So. 904; Couch v. At- 
kinson, 32 Ala. 633. Ark. — Hawkins 
V. Taylor, 56 Ark. 45, 19 S. W. 105, 
35 Am. St. Eep. 82. Ga. — Treadwell 
V. Beauchamp, 82 Ga. 736, 9 S. E. 
1040; Smith v. Sweat, 60 Ga. 539; 
Flowers v. Strickland, 10 Ga. App. 
739, 73 S. E. 1092; Clayton v. May, 
68 Ga. 27. la. — ^Lansing v. Bever Land 
Co., 158 Iowa 693, 138 N. W. 833; 
Anderson v. Wilson, 142 Iowa 158, 120 
N. W. 677. Tex. — Smith v. Chenault, 
48 Tex. 455 (execution reciting names 
of the partners is not, on collateral 
attack, subject to exception because 
the judgment upon which it is is- 
sued does not contain such names) ; 
Cleveland v. Simpson, 77 Tex. 96, 13 
S. W. 851. 

[a] An omission of the name of 
one of the partners plaintiff in the 
execution (1) will not render it fatally 
variant where the evidence aliunde 
made it clearly appear that such an 
omission was a clerical error. Eails- 
baek v. Lovejoy, 116 111. 442, 6 N. E. 
504. (2) An execution following a 
judgment against ""A. & Co." is good 
as against A. Hawkins v. Taylor, 56 
Ark. 45, 19 S. W. 105, 35 Am. St. 
Eep. 82. 

54. See supra, II, J, 3, e. 

55. Sawyer v. Armstrong, 23 Colo. 
287, 47 Pae. 391; Hoffman v. Wight, 
1 App. Div. 514, 37 N. Y. Supp. 262, 
72 N. Y. St. 588; Latz v. Blumen- 
thal, 50 Misc. 407, 100 N. Y. Supp. 



527; Matter of Armstrong, 35 Misc. 
327, 71 N. Y. Supp. 951; Staiger v. 
Theiss, 19 Misc. 170, 43 N. Y. Supp. 
292; Crane v. Cranitch, 3 Misc. 557, 
23 N. Y. Supp. 320, 52 N. Y. St. 
515. 

56. Crane v. Cranitch, 3 Misc. 557, 
23 N. Y. Supp. 320, 52 N. Y. St. 515; 
Dengler'B Appeal, 125 Pa. 12, 17 Atl. 
184; In re Kaine's Appeal, 92 Pa. 
273; Hare v. Com., 92 Pa. 141. 

As to directions to sheriff generally, 
see 15 Standard Peoc. 804. 

[a] The sheriff may rightly refuse 
to make a levy upon (1) the partner- 
ship effects under an ordinary form 
of writ (Dengler's Appeal, 125 Pa. 
12, 17 Atl. 184; Hare v. Com., 92 Pa. 
141), and (2) the fund raised by duch 
a sale is applicable to the satisfaction 
of the judgment upon which the ordi- 
nary form of execution is issued, as 
against a subsequently issued execution 
bearing the special direction. Deng- 
ler's Appeal, 125 Pa. 12, 17 Atl. 184. 

57. Crane v. Cranitch, 3 Misc. 557, 
23 N. Y. Supp. 320, 52 N. Y. St. 515. 

[a] An amendment to supply such 
indorsement is proper. Crane v. 
Cranitch, 3 Misc. 557, 23 N. Y. Supp. 
320, 52 N. Y. St. 515. 

58. See generally 15 Standaed Peoc. 
901. 

Property subject to levy, see supra, 
II, K, 1. 

59. Ark. — Noble v. Knobel Hoop 
Co., 85 Ark. 306, 107 S. W. 988. Ind. 
Ferguson v. Day, 6 Ind. App. 138, 33 
N. E. 213. Tex.— Middlebrook v. Zapp, 
79 Tex. 321, 15 S. W. 258. 

60. Jones v. First State Bank, 106 
Tex. 572, 173 S. W. 202; Middlebrook 

Vol. ZZI 



94 



PARTNERSHIP 



nership.^^ A levy made upon partHership assets for the satisfaction 
of a partner's individual debt must be made upon the partner's in- 
terest in the entire assets,^^ and not upon specific articles of partner- 
ship property,^^ although some courts maintain that it is not necessary 
for the sheriff to seize all the partnership property, under process 
against one of the members, when the sale of the interest of the part- 
ner in a quantity less than the whole will satisfy the writ.^* 

(II.) Effect of Levy on Title and Possession.65 _ The title to the part- 
nership property does not, after levy, vest in the ofRcer.^' In some 



V. Zapp, ?9 Tex. 321, 15 S. W. 258; 
Radford Grocery Co. v. Owens (Tex. 
Civ. App.), 161 S. W. 911; Seal v. Hol- 
comb, 48 Tex. Civ. App. 330, 107 S. 
W. 916; Adoue v. Wettermark, 36 Tex. 
Civ. App. 585, 82 S. W. 797. 

61. Jones v. First State Bank, 106 
Tex. 572, 173 S. W. 202; Middlebrook 
f. Zapp, 79 Tex. 321, 15 S. W. 258; 
Radford Grocery Co. v. Owens (Tex. 
Civ. App.), 161 S. W. 911; Adoue v. 
Wettermark, 36 Tex. Civ. App. 585, 82 
S. W. 797. 

62. Ala. — Tait V. Murphy, 80 Ala. 
440, 2 So. 317. Cal.— Clark v. Gush- 
ing, 52 Cal. 617. Del. — Bevan v. Allee, 
3 Harr. 80. HI.— Weber v. Hertz, 188 
111. 68, 58 N. E. 676; Gerard v. Bates, 
124 111. 150, 16 N. E. 258, 7 Am. St. 
Eep. 350; Swan v. Gilbert, 67 111. 
App. 236, affirmed, 175 111. 204, 51 N. 
E. 604, 67 Am. St. Rep. 208. Ind. 
Ferguson v. Day, 6 Ind. App. 138, 33 
N. E. 213. Mass.— Allen v. Wells, 22 
Pick. 450, 33 Am. Dee. 757. Miss. 
Blumenfeld v. Seward, 71 Miss. 342, 
14 So. 442; Atwood v. Meredith, 37 
Miss. 635. Mo. — Wiles v. Maddox, 26 
Mo. 77; Lester ex ret Wright v. Giv- 
ens, 74 Mo App. 395. N. H. — Morrison 
V. Blodgett, 8 N. H. 238, 29 Am. Dee. 
653. Pa. — Dengler's Appeal, 125 Pa. 
12, 17 Atl. 184; Vandike v. Eosakam, 
67 Pa. 330; Smith v. Emerson, 43 Pa. 
456; Deal v. Bogue, 20 Pa. 22g, 57 
Am. Dee. 702. 

[a] The fact that the sheriff spe- 
cifically enumerated the articles levied 
upon, did not .affect the levy where 
he seized the entire firm assets. Weber 
V. Hertz, 188 111. 68, 58 N. B. 676. 

63. Ala.— Tait v. Murphy, 80 Ala. 
440, 2 So. 317; Daniel v.' Owens & 
Cof., 70 Ala. 297. IlL— Weber v. 
Hertz, 188 111. 68, 58 N. E. 676; Gerard 
V. Bates, 124 111. 150, 16 N. E. 258, 
7 Am. St. Rep. 350. Ind.— Williams 
V. Lewis, 115 Ind. 45, 17 N, B. 262, 
7 Am. St. Eep. 403 J Stumph v, B^uer, 

Vol. xxr 



76 Ind. 157; Branch v. Wiseman, 51 
Ind. 1; Ferguson v. Day, 6 Ind. App. 
138, 33 N. E. 213. La*— Levy v. Cowan, 
27 La. Ann. 556; Marston &' Co. v. 
Dewberry, 21 La. Ann. 518; Pittman 

I V. Robicheau, 14 La. Ann. 108; Smith 
V. McMicken, 3 La. Ann. 319; Bank 

, of Tennessee v. McKeage, 11 Eob. 130; 
Morgan v. Liddell, Man. Unrep. Cas. 
278. Mass. — Sanborn v. Eoyee, 132 
Mass. 594. Mich. — Ernest v. Wood- 
worth, 124 Mich. 1, 82 N. W. 661; 
Kunze v. Cox, 113 Mich. 546, 71 N. W. 
864, 67 Am. St. Eep. 480; Hutchinson 
V. Dubois, 45 Mich. 143, 7 N. W. 714; 
Haynes v. Knowles, 36 Mich. 407; Sir- 
rine v. Briggs, 31 Mich. 433. Miss. 
Blumenfeld v. Seward, 71 Miss. 342, 
14 So. 442. N. H.— Morrison v. Blod- 
gett, 8 N. H. 238, 29 Am. Dec. 653. 
Pa.— Dengler's Appeal, 125 Pa. 12, 17 
Atl. 184; Vandike v. Eosskam, 67 Pa. 
330; In re Whigham's Appeal, 63 Pa. 
194; Smith v. Emerson, 43 Pa. 456; 
Deal V. Bogue, 20 Pa. 228, 57 Am. 
Dec. 702. Wash. — Skavdale v. Moyer, 
21 Wash. 10, 56 Pac. 841, 46 L. E. A. 
481. 

64. Colo. — Felt v. Cleghorn, 2 Colo. 
App. 4, 29 Pac. 813. Kan.— Hershfield 
V. H. B. Claflin & Co., 25 Kan. 166, 
37 Am. Rep. 237. Me. — ^Fogg v. Lawry, 
68 Me. 78, 28 Am. Rep. 19^ may at- 
tach specific property but can sell 
only such interest as the debtor would 
have in the attached property after 
partnership debts paid. Mo.— McCoy 
V. Hyatt, 80 Mo. 130; Wiles v. Mad- 
dox, 26 Mo. 77. N. Y.— Phillips v. 
Cook, 24 Wend. 389. Tenn.— Johnson 
V. Wingfieia, 42 S. W. 203 (wherein 
the court, after pointing out the in- 
consistencies of this rule, refuses to 
depart from the rule laid down in 
previous decisions) ; Haskins v. Everett, 
4 Sneed 531. ' 

65. See generally 15 Standard Proc. 
995. 

66. m.— White V. Jones, 38 111. 159, 



PABTNEB8HIP 



95 



jurisdictions, the possession of the partnership,®' or of the member 
who is the defendant in the writ of attachment, or execution,'^ is not 
affected by the levy of an at*tachment or writ of execution, except for 
the purpose of making* an inventory and appraisement.'® According 
to many authorities, the sheriff under an execution against one mem- 
ber of a partnership, may take the partnership goods into his. ex- 
elusive possession,'" at least until the other partners present a case 
for the court of equity to take an accounting for the purpose of ascer- 
taining the interest of the debtor partner,'^ 



Ky. — Graves v. McKinney's Admr., 6 
Ky. Li. Eep. 220. Utah. — Hamuer v. 
■ Ballantyne, 16 Utah 436, 52 Pac. 770, 
67 Am. St. Eep. 643. 

67. Ark. — Summers v. Heard, 66 
Ark. 550, 50 S. W. 78, 51 S. W. 1057. 
la. — Richarda v. Haines, 30 Iowa 574. 
Ind. Ter. — Carlisle v. McAlester, 3 Ind. 
Ter. 164, 53 S. W. 531. N. H.— Tread- 
well V. Brown, 43 N. H. 290; Dow v. 
Sayward, 14 N. H. 9; Morrison v. 
Blodgett, 8 N. H. 238, 29 Am. Dee. 
653. Te?. — Jones v. First State Bank, 
106 Tex. 572, 173 S. W. 202; Middle- 
brook V. Zapp, 79 Tex. 321, 15 S. W. 
258; Radford Grocery Co. v. Owens 
(Tex. Civ. App.), 161 S. W. 911. 

[a] Prior to the adoption of the 
revised statutes, the sheriff could, upon 
an attachment or execution for the 
separate debt of one partner, actually 
seize and take possession of the part- 
nership effects. Lee v. Wilkins, 65 
Tex. 295; Longcope v. Bruce, 44 Tex. 
434; Bradford v. Johnson, 44 Tex. 381; 
De Forest, Armstrong & Co. v. Miller, 
42 Tex. 34. 

[b] Statutes in some jurisdictions 
provide that if the defendant in 
execution owns or is entitled to an 
interest in any property not exclusive- 
ly in his own possession, such interest 
may be levied on and sold by the 
sheriff wifhout taking the property into 
his actual possession. Blumenfeld v. 
Seward, 71 Miss. 342, 14 So. 442; Willis 
V. Loeb, 59 Miss. 169. And see Sanders 
V. Young, 31 Miss. Ill, for rule prior 
to the enactment of the statute. 

68. Jones v. First State Bank, 106 
Tex. 572, 173 S. W. 202; Seal v. Hol- 
comb, 48 Tex. Civ'. App. 330, 107 S. "W. 
916. 

69. Summers v. Heard, 66 Ark. 550, 
50 S. W. 78, 51 S. W. 1057; Aultman 
17. Fuller, 53 Iowa 60, 4 N. W. 809; 
Richards v. Haines, 30 Iowa 574. 

70. TJ. S. — United States v. Wil- 
liams, 4 McLean 236, 28 Fed. Gas, No. 



16,719. Ala. — Andrews v. Keith, 34 
Ala. 722; "Moore & Co. v. Sample, 3 
Ala. 319. Oal. — Commercial Bank v. 
Mitchell, 58 Cal. 42; Clark v. Cushing, 
52 Cal. 617. Oolo.— Felt v. Cleghoru, 
2 Colo. App. 4, 29 Pae. 813. Del. 
Davis V. White, 1 Houst. 228. 111. 
White V. Jones, 38 111. 159; Newhall 
V. Buckingham, 14 111. 405. Ind. 
Ferguson v. Day, 6 Ind. App. 138, 33 
N. E. 213. la. — Edgar v. Caldwell, 
Morris 434. Me. — Moore v. Pennell, 
52 Me. 162, 83 Am. Dec. 500. Minn. 
Wickham v. Davis, 24 Minn. 167; 
Barrett v. McKenzie, 24 Minn. 20. 
Mo.— McCoy V. Hyatt, 80 Mo. 130; 
Wiles V. Maddox, 26 Mo. 77; Lester 
•ex rel. Wright v. Givens, 74 Mo. App. 
395; Lloyd v. Tracy, 53 Mo. App. 
175. N. Y.— Atkins v. Saxton, 77 N. 
Y. 195; Smith v. Orser, 42 N. Y. 132; 
Ryder v. Gilbert, 16 Hun 163; Waddell 
V. Cook, 2 Hill 47, 37 Am. Dec. 372. 
Ohio.— Nixon v. Nash, 12 Ohio St. 647, 
80 Am. Dec. 390. Tenn. — Jones v. 
Richardson, 99 Tenn. 614, 42 S. W. 
440; Johnson v. Wingfield, 42 S. W. 
203; Saunders v. Bartlett, 12 Heisk. 
316; Haskins v. Everett, 4 Sneed 531. 
Utah.— Snell v. Crowe, 3 Utah 26, 5 
Pac. 522. Va.— Shaver v. White, 6 
Munf. (20 Va.) 110, 8 Am. Dec. 730. 
Eng. — Parker v. Piator, 3 Bos. & Pul. 
288, 127 Eng. Reprint 159 (sheriff 
should put some person in possession of 
the defendant's share as vendee). Hey- 
don V. Heydon, 1 Salk. 392, 91 Eng. Re- 
print 340. 

[a] The power is merely incidental 
to the right to reach the interest of 
the debtor, and is to be exercised only 
as a means to that end. Atkins v. 
Saxton, 77 N. Y. 195. 

71. Ala. — Moore & Co. v. Sample, 3 
Ala. 319. 111.— White v. Jones, 38 111. 
159, and note; Newhall v. Bucking- 
ham, 14 m. 405. Ohio. — Nixon v. 
Nash, 12 Ohio St. 647, 80 Am. Dee. 
390. 

Vol. XXI 



96 



PABTNEB8HIP 



(III.) Sale of Partner's Interest." -fOnly the debtor partner's un- 
divided interest in the partnership property can be sold.'^ 

Place of Sale. — The statutes in some jurisdictions require that the 
sale of a partner's interest take place in the county where the chief 
place of business of the partnership is located.''* 

Advertisement. — The property seized should be advertised and sold 
as the share of one partner in the property of a named partnership/* 

Effect of Sale. —A sale of the partner's interest does not divest the 
other partners of their title to their interest.'* The purchaser at an 
execution sale of a partner's share of a debt due the partnership does 
not acquire title to the debt itself, and no right to receive payment 
of it." After the sale of the partner's undivided interest, the sheriff 
must put the vendee into the joint possession of the property sold.''* 

Application of Proceeds. —Where the sheriff has in his hands execu- 
tions against the partnership and another against one member only 



72. See generally 15 Standard Peoo. 
160. 

As to whether partner may purchase, 
see 16 Standard Peoc. 195. 

73. U. S.— United States v. Wil- 
liams, 4 McLean 236, 28 Fed. Cas. 
No. 16,719. Ala. — Daniel v. Owens & 
Co., 70 Ala. 297. Cal.— Clark v. Cush- 
ing, 52 Cal. 617. Conn. — Brewster v. 
Hammet, 4 Conn. 540; Church v. Knox, 
2 Conn. 514. Del. — Bevan v. Allee, 3 
Harr. 80. HI. — Chandler v. Lincoln, 
52 111. 74; White v. Jones, 38 111. 159. 
Ind. — ^Ferguson v. Day, 6 Ind. App. 
138, 3'3 N. E. 213. la.— Edgar v. Cald- 
well, Morris 434. Kan. — Hershfield v. 
H. B. Claflin & Co., 25 Kan. 166, 37 
Am. Eep. 237. Ky. — Eubank v. Vance, 
6 Ky. L. Rep. 303. Me.— Moore v. 
Pennell, 52 Me. 162, 83 Am. Dee. 500. 
Mass. — Allen v. Wells, 22 Pick. 450, 
33 Am. Dee. 757. Minn. — Caldwell v. 
Auger, 4 Minn. 217, 77 Am. Deo. 515. 
Miss. — Willis V. Loeb, 59 Miss. 169; 
Atwood D. Meredith, 37 Miss. 635. Mo. 
Wiles V. Maddox, 26 Mo. 77; Lester 
ex rel. Wright v. Givens, 74 Mo. App. 
395. N. H.— Dow v. Sayward, 14 N. 
H. 9; Gibson v. Stevens, 7 N. H. 352. 
N. J. — Clements v. Jessup, 36 N. J. 
Eq. 569; National Bank of the Metrop- 
olis V. Sprague, 20 N. J. Eq. 13. N. Y. 
Staats V. Bristow, 73 N. Y. 264; Men- 
agh V. Whitwell, 52 N. Y. 146, 11 Am. 
Eep. 683; Phillips v. Cook, 24 Wend. 
389; Scrugham v. Carter, 12 Wend. 
131; Eyder v. Gilbert, 16 Hun 163; 
Berry v. Kelly, 4 Bob. 106. Pa. 
Dengler's Appeal, 125 Pa. 12, 17 Atl. 
184. Tenn. — Saunders v. Bartlett, 12 
Heisk. 316; Saskins V. EVeretf, 4 
Sneed 531; Johnson v. Wingfield, 42 

Vol XXI 



S. W. 203. Tex— Middlebrook v. Zapp, 
79 Tex. 321, 15 S. W. 258; Eogers v. 
Bradford, 56 Tex. 630. Utah.— Snell 
V. Crowe, 3 Utah 26, 5 Pae. 522. 
Va.— Lynch v. Hill, 6 Munf. (20 Va.) 
114. Eng. — Heydon v. Heydon, 1 Salk. 
392, 91 Eng. Reprint 340. 

[a] That goods may be sold in par- 
cels or lots where conducive to the 
debtor partner's best interest, see Aid- 
rich V. Wallace, 8 Dana (Ky.) 287, 33 
Am. Dec. 495. As to sale in parcels gen- 
erally, see 16 Standard Proc. 184. 

[b] If a less interest Is sold than 
(1) the debtor partner is entitled to, 
his remaining interest is not affected 
by the sale (Aldrioh v. Wallace, 8 
Dana [Ky.] 287, 33 Am. Dec. 495); 
and (2) it is erroneous to decree to 
the purchaser the entire interest of 
the debtor partner. Gerard v. Bates, 
124 111. 150, 16 N. E. 258, 7 Am. St. 
Rep. 350. 

74. Hare v. Com., 92 Pa. 141. 

75. Pittman v. Robicheau, 14 La. 
Ann. 108. 

[a] Reason. — The purchaser should 
be informed that he is buying the 
partnership interest of an individual 
partner, and that the property, in his 
hands, will be subject to the settle- 
ment of partnership debts, in a liquida- 
dation of the partnership. . Pittman o. 
Eobicheau, 14 La. Ann. 108. 

76. White v. Jones, 38 111. 159. 

77. Barrett v. MeKenzie, 24 Minn. 
20. ' 

78. Colo.— Felt v. Cleghorn, 2 Colo. 
App. 4, 29 Pac. 813. 111.— White V. 
Jones, 38 111. 159. Tenn.— Johnson t>. 
Wingfield, 42 S. W. 2(«; Haskins V. 
Everett, 4 Sneed 531. 



PARTNERSHIP 



97 



for his individual debt, the proceeds of the sale under such executions 
should be applied first to the payment of the partnership judgment 
and then to the individual judgment.''* 

3. Subsequent Proceedings Against Partner Not Served. — In 
jurisdictions allowing a recovery against the joint debtors served, the 
proper proceeding is to serve a summons in the nature of scire facias 
upon the defendant not served with the first process, to cause him to 
appear and show cause why he should not be made a party to such 
judgment.*" The citation in such case should describe the judgment,'^ 
and require the person to whom it is directed to show cause why he 
should not be bound by it.*^ A finding against him must be for the 
amount remaining unsatisfied on the original judgment.*^ 

4. Accounting to Judgment Creditor or Execution Purchaser. 
The court will direct an accounting at the instance of a judgment 
creditor or a purchaser to determine the interest of the debtor 
partner.** 



79. U. S. — Inbuseh v. Farwell, 1 
Black 566, 17 L. ed. 188. Oal.— Com- 
mercial Bank v. Mitchell, 58 Cal. 42. 
Ind.— Louden v. Ball, 93 Ind. 232. la. 
Eichards v. Haines, 30 Iowa 574. Md. 
Thompson v. Frist, 15 Md. 24. N. Y. 
Kyder v. Gilbert, 16 Hun 163. Pa. 
Coover's Appeal, 29 Pa. 9, 70 Am. 
Dec. 149 (such right accrues to the 
partnership creditors and becomes 
paramount to the individual creditor 
if acquired at any time before the 
sale under the writ against the in- 
dividual) ; Cooper 's Appeal, 26 Pa. 
262; In re Snodgrass' Appeal, 13 Pa. 
471; In r-e Overholt's Appeal, 12 Pa. 
222, 51 Am. Dee. 598; Hershey, Schwenk 
& Co. V. Fulmer, 3 Pa. Co. Ct. 442; 
Eex, Silves & Co. v. Lomman, 3 Phila. 
287. S. C— Crawford v. Baum, 12 
Eieh. L. 75. Tex. — ^Blankenship v. 
Wartelsky, 6 S. W. 140. 

[a] Money Paid Into Court. — Where 
the sheriff has money in his hands 
made by the sale of the partnership 
property for the satisfaction of the 
debt of the individual partners, the 
plaintiffs in execution of the partner- 
ship may ask that the money be paid 
into court for distribution there. 
Hershey, Schwenk & €o. v. Fulmer, 3 
Pa. Co. Ct. 443. 

80. CaJ. — Waterman v. Lippman, 67 
Cal. 26, 6 Pae. 875. Colo.— Ellaberry 
V. Block, 28 Colo. 477, 65 Pac. 629; 
Sawyer v. Armstrong, 23 Colo. 287, 47 
Pac. 391. III. — Sherburne v. Hyde, 185 
111. 580, 57 N. B. 776; Sandusky v. 
Sidwell, 173 111. 493, 50 N. E. 1003 
(affirming 73 111. App. 491); Fleming 
V. Boss, 125 111. App. 265, affirmed in 



225 111. 149, 80 N. E. 92; Gormley 
V. Hartray, 105 111. App. 625, 92 111. 
App. 115; Kling v. Taylor, 90 111. 
App. 165. N. C. — Davis v. Sanderlin, 
119 N. C. 84, 25 S. E. 815. S. C. 
Adicks V. Allison, 21 S. C. 245. 

See generally the title "Summary 
Proceedings." 

81. Ellsberry *. Block, 28 Colo. 477, 
65 Pac. 629. 

82. Ellsberry c. Block, 28 Colo. 477, 
65 Pac. 629. 

83. Ellsberry v. Block, 28 Colo. 477, 
65 Pac. 629. 

[a] Form of Judgment Where One 
Partner Subsequently Served. — "The 
judgment herein of H. F. A., having 
been recovered against the partner- 
ship of A. & B. and also against J. 
B. A., who alone was served with 
process, and the other partner, J. R. 
B., now having been served and 
heard, it is adjudged, that the said B. 
be bound by the aforesaid judgment 
against the partnership of A. & B. 
from this date; and it is further or- 
dered that the plaintiff have leave to 
enter execution on said judgment 
against the said B. personally." 
Adickes v. Allison, 21 S. C. 245. 

84. Cal. — Commercial Bank v. Mitch- 
ell, 58 Cal. 42. Del.— Bevan v. Allee, 
3 Harr. 80. la. — Aultman v. Puller, 
53 Iowa 60, 4 N. W. 809; Eichards 
V. Haines, 30 Iowa 574; Hubbard v. 
Curtis, 8 Iowa 1, 74 Am. Dec. 283. 
N. Y. — Sterrett v. Third Nat. Bank, 
46 Hun 22, 10 N. Y. St. 818; Phillips 
l: Cook, 24 Wend. 389. Ohio.— Nixon 
V. Nash, 12 Ohio St. 647, 80 Am. Dec 
390; Sutcliffe v. Dohrman, IS Ohio 

Vol. XXI 



98 



PABTNEBSHIP 



5. Remedies of Partners Not Parties Defendant. — Where the 
partnership property is taken an execution against one partner, the 
remedy of the remaining partners is not to replevy the property from 
the officer,*^ although that has been considered proper,** hut they should 
obtain an injunction against further proceedings until an account can 
be taken in equity.*^ 

As against aa execution purchaser of a debtor partner's interest in the 
partnership property, the other partners cannot, in the name of the 
firm, maintain conversion** or trespass** against him in respect to such 
property. Their remedy in such case is to call him to account in 
equity.®" 

6. Injunction Against Enforcement. — Where no full, complete 
and adequate remedy at law exists, equity will enjoin the enforcement 
of a judgment against a partner or partnership.®^ Thus an ordinary''' 



181, 51 Am. Deo. 450. Ore. — Cogs- 
well V. Wilson, 17 Ore. 31, 21 Pae. 388. 
Pa. — Kuerr v. Hoffman, 65 Pa. 126; 
Reinheimer v. Hemingway, 35 Pa. 432; 
Ire re Kelly's Appeal,, 16 Pa. 59. 
Tenu. — Jones v. Richardson, 99 Tenn. 
614, 42 S. "W. 440; Johnson v. Wing- 
field, 42 S. W. 203; Haskins v. Everett, 
4 Sneed 531. 

Accounting between partners, see 
supra, I, 0. 

[a] The only relief that can he 
given in such equitable action is that 
which relates to the interest of tho 
debtor partner in the property seized 
upon execution, and the satisfaction, 
in a way authorized by the law, of 
the judgment by the sale of such 
property. Richards v. Haines, 30 Iowa 
574. 

[b] A judgment creditor of the 
partnership may maintain the bill, 
where the judgment creditor of the 
individual fails to do so. Aultman v. 
Fuller, 53 Iowa 60, 4 N. W. 809. 

85. Scrugham v. Carter, 12 Wend. 
(N. Y.) 131. 

86. Rapp V. Vogel, 45 Mo. 524; 
Coggshall V. Hunger, 54 Mo. App. 
420. 

[a] The value of the Interest levied 
upon is determinable in such action. 
Rapp V. Vogel, 45 Mo. 524. 

87. N. Y. — Scrugham v. Carter, 13 
Wend. 131. Ohio.— Nixon v. Nash, 12 
Ohio St. 647, 80 Am. Dec. 390; Sut- 
cliffe V. Dohrman, 18 Ohio 181, 51 Am. 
Dec. 450; Place v. Sweetzer, 16 Ohio 
142. Tenn. — Johnson v. Wingfleld, 42 
8. W. 203; Haskins V. Everett, 4 Sneed 
531. Tex.— Middlebrook v. Zapp, 79 
Tex. 321, 15 S. W. 268. 

Vol. XXI 



Enjoining enforcement of judgment, 
see infra, II, K, 6. 

88. White v. Woodward, 8 B. Mon. 
(Ky.) 484. 

89. Scrugham v. Carter, 12 Wend. 
(N. Y.) 131. 

90. White v. Woodward, 8 B. Mon. 
(Ky.) 484; Lamoille Valley R. Co. v. 
Bixby, 55 Vt. 235. 

91. Ala. — Daniel v. Owens & Co., 
70 Ala. 297; Fowlkes & Co. v. Bald- 
win, Kent & Co., 2 Ala. 705. Fla. 
Purviance v. Edwards, 17, Fla. 140. 
La. — Walworth v. Henderson, 9 La. 
Ann. 339. Md.— See Chappell v. Cox, 
18 Md. 513, where officer is respon- 
sible, legal remedy is adequate. Neh. 
Winters v. Means, 25 Neb. 241, 41 
N. W. 157, 13 Am. St. Rep. 489. Vt. 
Shedd & Co. v. Bank of Brattleboro, 
32 Vt. 709. 

See generally 16 Standabd Peoc. 
450, et seq.; 15 Standaed Peoc. 257, 
et seq. 

[a] Mistake in entering the judg- 
ment not sufficient ground, where no 
prejudice follows. Crenshaw v. Wick- 
ersham, 15 Iowa 154. 

[b] Unauthorized Judgment by 
Confession.— Christy v. Sherman, 10 
Iowa 535. 

92. Me. — Thompson v. Lewis, 34 
Me. 167. N. J.— Blaekwell v. Rankin, 
7 N. J. Eq. 152; Cammack v. Johnson, 
2 N. J. Eq. 163. Ohio.— Nixon i;. 
Nash, 12 Ohio St. 647, 80 Am. Dee. 
390; Sutcliffe v. Dohrman, 18 Ohio 181, 
51 Am. Dec. 450. Vt. — Washburn v. 
Bank of Bellows Falls, 19 Vt. 278. 
Bng.— Taylor v. Fields, 4 Ves. Jr. 396, 
31 Eng. Reprint 201. 

[a] The injunction will be refused 
and the creditor allowed to pursue 



PARTNERSHIP 



99 



creditor of the partnership, or the remaining partner or partners,^^ 
may bring a bill against the separate creditor of one of the partners 
to restrain a sale upon execution, of the partnership property, at least 
until a partnership account is taken, and the precise interest of the 
debtor partner ascertained.^* - Some courts refuse to grant an in- 
junction to stay a sale of partnership property under an execution 
at la^ against one of the partners, for the reason that such sale could 
only place the purchaser, as to the property, in the same situation 
that the defendant in execution was prior to such sale,^° and where 
the levy of the execution or attachment produces no change in the 
possession of the property of the partnership by reason of the pro- 
visions of the statute,^^ an injunction will not lie to restrain the levy 
of an execution upon the interest of a partner."^ 

L. Appeal and Ekror. — An appeal from a judgment by or 
against a partnership is governed in general by the rules respecting 
appeals elsewhere discussed.^^ Where the judgment rendered is joint 
against the partners, all the partners are necessary parties to an 
appeal therefrom,*' and this is true although one of the partners de- 



his execution where the equities be- 
tween him and the partnership cred- 
itor are equal. Lamoille Valley R. 
Co. V. Bixby, 55 Vt. 235. 

93. U. S. — Cropper v. Coburn, 2 Curt. 
465, 6 Fed. Cas. No. 3,416 (wherein 
the partnership was insolvent and the 
debtor partner had consequently no 
interest which could pass by a sale); 
Crane v. Morrison, 4 Sawy. 138, 6 Fed. 
Cas. No. 3,355, 7 N. B. E. 393. Ga. 
Blood V. Martin, 21 Ga. 127. Ind. 
WUliams v. Lewis, 115 Ind. 45, 17 
N. E. 262, 7 Am. St. Eep. 403 (specific 
articles levied on); Hardy v. Donellan, 
33 Ind. 501. Me. — Crooker e. Crooker, 
46 Me. 250. Mich. — Krupp v. Adams, 
124 Mich. 215, 82 N. W. 894, wherein 
the execution was levied on specific 
property of the firm. N. J. — Harney 
V. First Nat. Bank, 52 N. J. Eq. ,697, 
29 Atl. 221. N. Y.— Turner v. Smith, 
1 Abb. Pr. N. S. 304, where it ap- 
pears from the complaint that the 
debtor partner has no interest in tie 
firm assets. Ohia. — ^^Nixon v. Nash, 12 
Ohio St. 647, 80 Am. Dec. 390; Sut- 
cliffe V. Dohrman, 18 Ohio 181, 51 Am. 
Dec. 450; Place v. Sweetzer, 16 Ohio 
142. Tex. — Eogers v. Nichols, 20 Tex. 
719, decided in 1858 when levy made 
a change in the possession of the 
property; see infra, for present rule. 
Vt. — ^Washburn v. Bank of Bellows 
Falls, 19 Vt. 278. 

But see Jones v. Thompson, 12 Cal. 
191. 

94. TJ. S. — Crane v. Morrison, 4 



Sawy. 138, 6 Fed. Cas. No. 3,355, 7 
N. B. E. 393. Ala.— Moore & Co. v. 
Sample, 3 Ala. 319. IlL— Newhall v. 
Buckingham, 14 111. 405. Miss. — San- 
ders V. Young, 31 Miss. 111. N. H. 
Dow V. Sayward, 14 N. H. 9. N. J. 
Harney v. First Nat. Bank, 52 N. J. 
Eq. 697, 29 Atl. 221. Ohio.— Nixon v. 
Nash, 12 Ohio St. 647, 80 Am. Dec. 
390; Place v. Sweetzer, 16 Ohio 142. 
Tex. — Eogers v. Nichols, 20 Tex. 719. 
Vt. — Washburn v. Bank of Bellows 
Falls, 19 Vt. 278. Bng.— Barker v. 
Goodair, 11 Ves. Jr. 78, 32 Eng. Re- 
print 1017. 

95. IMinu. — Wickham v. Davis, 24 
Minn. 167. Miss. — Sitler v. Walker, 
Preem. Ch. 77. N. Y. — Saunders v. 
Irwin, 17 Hun 342; Moody v. Payne, 
2 Johns. Ch. 548; Mowbray v. Law- 
rence, 22 How. Pr. 107, 13 Abb. Pr. 
317; Phillips V. Cook, 24 Wend. 389; 
Eead v. McLanahan, 15 Jones & S. 
275. 

96. See supra, 11, K, 2, o, '(II). 

97. Radford Grocery Co. v. Owens 
(Tex. Civ. App.), 161 S. W. 911. 

98. See 2 Standard Peoc. 106, et 
seq. 

99. Ga.— Kline v. Swift Specific Co., 
118 Ga. 514, 45 S. E. 314. Kan.— West- 
over V. Dobson, 47 Pac. 620. Ohio. 
Beers & Co. v. Gurney, 14 Ohio Cir. 
Ct. 82, 7 Ohio Cir. Dee. 411. 

And see 2 Standaed Pboc. 225. 
How partners described, see 2 Stand- 
ard Peoo. 216. 

Vol. XXI 



100 



PARTNERSHIP 



faulted in the trial court.^ If the partner refuses his consent to joid 
in the appeal, he should be made a defendant, the reason beinj, stated 
in the petition in error.^ In accordance with the general rule that 
only parties to the record can appeal from the judgment rendered,* 
a partnership cannot appeal, where a judgment was rendered in a 
suit against the partners as individuals.* Where a partner dies after 
the rendition of judgment, an appeal may be prosecuted by or against 
the surviving partner.^ Where a several judgment may be entered 
against the members of a firm, the appellate court may afSrm the 
judgment as to some of the partners, and reverse or modify it as to 
the others.® 

III. ACTIONS BY OR AGAINST SURVIVING PARTNERS OR 
REPRESENTATIVES OF DECEASED PARTNERS. — A. By and 
Against Whom. — 1. At Common Law. — Unless otherwise provided 
by statute actions at law to enforce partnership rights and liabilities 
are upon the death of a member, brought by and against the sur- 
viving partners,^ and the personal representatives of a deceased part- 



1. Westover v. Dobson (Kan.), 47 
Pac. 620. 

2. Westover v. Dobson (Kan.), 47 
Pae. 620( 

3. See generally 2 Standard Peoc. 
194. 

4* Bastian v. Adams, 5 Neb. (TJnof.) 
32, 97 N. W. 231. 

5. Eobertson v. Ford, 164 Ind. 538, 
74 N. E. 1. 

6. Bridgeford v. Fogg, Shaw, Thay- 
er & Co., 10 Ky. L. Eep. 773. 

7. TJ. S.— Wickliffe v. Eve, 17 How. 
468, 15 L. ed. 163; Bisehoflsheim v. 
Baltzer, 20 Fed. 890; Kirby v. Lake 
Shore & M. S. E. Co., 8 Fed. 462. 
Ala. — Walton v. Atkinson, 165 Ala. 
644, 51 So. 826; Evans v. Silvey & 
Co., 144 Ala. 398, 42 So. 62; Win- 
frey V. Clarke, 107 Ala. 355, 18 So. 
141; Goldsmith v. Eichold, 94 Ala. 
116, 10 So. 80, 33 Am. St. Eep. 97; 
Davidson v. Weems, 58 Ala. 187; Offutt 
V. Scott, 47 Ala. 104; Dixon v. Bar- 
clay, 22 Ala. 370; Andrews' Heirs v. 
Brown's Admr., 21 Ala. 437, 56 Am. 
Dec. 252. Ark.— Stillwell v. Gray, 17 
Ark. 473; McLain v. Carson's Exr., 4 
Ark. 164, 37 Am. Dec. 777. Oal. 
Miller v. County of Kern, 137 Cal. 516, 
70 Pac. 549; Berson v, Ewing, 84 Cal. 
89, 23 Pae. 1112. Conn.— Alsop v. 
Mather, 8 Conn. 584, 21 Am. Dec. 703. 
Del. — Currey v. Warrington's Exr., 5 
Harr. 147. Fla. — Filly au v. Laverty, 3 
Fla. 72, 101. Ga.— Knox v. Bates & 
Co., 79 Ga. 425, 5 S. E. 61; Morrow 
V. Cloud, 77 Ga. 114; City of Atlanta 
V. Dooly, 74 Ga. 702; Bennett v. Wool- 
folk, 15 Ga. 213; Boss v. Everett's 

Vol. XXI 



Exrs., 12 Ga. 30. HI. — ^Belton v. Fish- 
er, 44 111. 32. tod. — Mcintosh v. Zar- 
ing, 150 Ind. 301, 49 N. E. 164; Need- 
ham V. Wright, 140 Ind. 190, 39 N. E. 
510; Hess v. Lowrey, 122 Ind. 225, 23 
N. E. 150, 17 Am. St. Eep. 355, 7 L. 
E. A. 90; Ealston v. Moore, 105 Ind. 
243, 4 N. E. 673; Anderson v. Acker- 
man, 88 Ind. 481; Willson v. Nichol- 
son, 61 Ind. 241; Hayes v. Johnson, 56 
Ind. App. 238, 105 N. E. 164. la. 
Brown v. Allen, 35 Iowa 306; Bowen 
V. Troy Portable Mill Co., 31 Iowa 
460; Childs, Sanford & Co. v. Hyde 
& Co., 10 Iowa 294, 77 Am. Dee. 113. 
Ky. — Southard v. Lewis, 4 Dana 148; 
Broadfoot v. Eowe, 14 Ky. L. Eep. 
895, Me.— Strang v. Hirst, 61 Me. 
9; Clark v. Howe, 23 Me. 560. Md. 
Folsom V. Detrick Fertilizer & Chem. 
Co., 85 Md. 52, 36 Atl. 446; Harwood 
V. Jones, 10 Gill & J. 404, 32 Am. 
Dee. 180. Mass. — Eussell v. Cole, 167 
Mass. 6, 44 N. E. 1057, 57 Am. St. 
Eep.' 432; Hughes v. Gross, 166 Mass. 
61, 43 N. E. 1031, 55 Am. St. Eep. 
375, 32 L. E. A. 620; Aakman v. Dor- 
chester Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 98 Mass. 
57; Peters v. Davis, 7 Mass. 257; Eice, 
Appellant, 7 Allen 112. Mich. — ^Van 
Kleeck v. McCabe, 87 Mich. 599, 49 
N. W. 872, 24 Am, St. Eep. 182; O'Con- 
nell V. Schwanabeck, 76 Mich. 517, 43 
N. W. 599; Cragin v. Gardner, 64 Mich. 
399, 31 N. W. 206; Bassett v. Miller, 
39 Mich. 133. Miss. — Freeman v. Stew- 
art, 41 Mis9. 138. Mo. — Hargadine v. 
Gibbons, 114 Mo. 561, 21 S. W. 726. 
Neb. — Lindner v. Adams County Bank, 
49 Neb. 735, 68 N. W. 1028. NOV. 



PARTNERSHIP 



30 

1919 i^y 

ner cannot sue or be sued alone,* except where the surviving.5itt3-™«™ 
refuse to sue when they should.* 

Joinder as plaintiff,^" of the deceased partner's personal representa- 




Maples V. Geller, 1 Nev. 233. N. H. 
Gay V. Johnson, 32 N. H. 167. N. Y. 
Nehrboss v. Bliss, 88 N. Y. 600, 2 Civ. 
Proc. 39, 2 McCarty Civ. Proc. 106; 
Pope V. Cole, 55 N. Y. 124, 14 Am. 
Eep. 198; Farwell v. Davis, 66 Barb. 
73; Carrere v. Spofford, 15 Abb. Pr. 
(N. S.) 47, 46 How. Pr. 294; Grant 
V Shurter, 1 Wend. 148; Secor v. Pen- 
dleton, 47 Hun 281, 13 N. Y. St. 387; 
Merrill v. Blanchard, 7 App. Div. 167, 
40 N. Y. Supp. 48, 74 N. Y. St. 661; 
Callanan v. Keeseville, A. C. & L. C. 
E. Co., 48 Mise. 476, 95 N. Y. Supp. 
513. N. C— Felton v. Eeid, 52 N. C. 
269. Okla. — White v. Dillinger, 50 
Okla. 555, 151 Pae. 194. Pa.— Davis 
V. Church, 1 Watts & S. 240; Seranton 
Sav. Bk. V. Seranton, 20 Pa. Dist. 829. 
E. I. — Hawkins v. Capron, 17 E. I. 
679, 24 Atl. 466; Pearce v. Cooke, 13 
E. I. 184. Tenn. — Trundle v. Edwards, 
4 Sneed 572; Saunders v. Wilder, 2 
Head 577. Tex. — O'Brien v. Gilleland, 
79 Tex. 602, 15 S. W. 681; Watson v. 
Miller, 55 Tex. 289; Lovelady v. Ben- 
nett (Tex. Civ. App.), 30 S. W. 1124; 
Davis V. Schaffner & Co., 3 Tex. Civ. 
App. 121, 22 S. W. 822. Utah.— Cobb 
V. Hartenstein, 47 Utah 174, 152 Pac. 
424. Vt. — Wood V. Eutland & Addison 
Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 31 Vt. 552; Meader 
V. Scott, 4 Vt. 26; Meader v. Leslie, 
2 Vt. 569. Va. — Brown's Admr. v. 
Johnson, 13 Gratt. (54 Va.) 644. Wash. 
Brigham-Hopkins Co. v. Gross, 30 
Wash. 277, 70 Pac. 480 (common law 
rule unchanged by statute); Barlow v. 
Coggan, 1 Wash. Ter. 257. Wis. — But- 
ler V. Kirby, 53 Wis. 188, 10 N. W. 
373; Eoys v. Vilas, 18 Wis. 169; Shields 
V. Fuller, 4 Wis. 102, 65 Am. Dec. 
293. 

[a] A doimant partner may sue 
alone upon a partnership contract 
after the death of his ostensible part- 
ner. Beach v. Hayward, 10 Ohio 455. 

[b] Upon the death of the surriving 
partner, his personal representative ia 
the only proper person to sue or be 
sued upon the demands of the former 
partnership. Ala. — Costley v. Wilker- 
Bon's Admr., 49 Ala. 210. Mass.— Whit- 
ney V. Cook, 5 Mass. 139. Miss. 
Copes V. Fultz, 1 Smed. & M. 623. 
N. Y.— Nehrboss v. Bliss, 88 N. Y. 



600, 2 Civ. Proc. 39, 2 McCarty Civ. 
Proc. 106; Secor v. Pendleton, 47 Hun 
281, 13 N. Y. St. 387; Carrere v. Spof- 
ford, 46 How. Pr. 294; Bridge v. 
Swain, 3 Eedf. 487. Tenn. — Brooks v. 
Brooks, 12 Heisk. 12; Walker v. Gal- 
breath, 3 Head 315. 

[e] Failure to file an inventory and 
appraisement as required by statute 
does not affect the right of the sur- 
viving partner to sue for and collect 
the debts of the partnership. Mcin- 
tosh V. Zaring, 150 Ind. 301, 49 N. E. 
164. And see State v. Matthews, 129 
Ind. 281, 28 N. E. 703. But see Phoe- 
nix Ins. Co. V. Carnahan, 63 Ohio St. 
258, 58 N. E. 805. 

8. Ark.— Stillwell v. Gray, 17 Ark. 
473. Ga.— Bennett v. Woolfolk, 15 
Ga. 213; Eoss v. Everett's Exrs., 12 
Ga. 30; Eoosevelt v. McDowell, 1 Ga. 
489. Ind. — Mcintosh v. Zaring, 150 
Ind. 301, 49 N. E. 164. Me.— McNally 
V. Kerswell, 37 Me. 550. Mo.— Lindell 
V. Lee, 34 Mo. 103. N. Y.— Carrere 
V. Spofford, 15 Abb. Pr. (N. S.) 47, 
46 How. Pr. 294. Utah.— Cobb v. Har- 
tenstein, 47 Utah 174, 152 Pac. 424. 

9. Kirby v. Lake Shore & M. S. E. 
Co., 8 Fed. 462. And see Drake v. 
Blount, 17 N. C. 353, wherein it was 
held that where a partnership debt 
was assigned to one of the partners 
who thereafter died, and the residence 
of the survivor is unknown, the execu- 
tor of the deceased partner could re- 
cover the debt in equity. 

10. U. S.— Wickliffe v. Eve, 17 How. 
468, 15 L. ed. 163; Eobinson v. Hin- 
trager, 36 Fed. 752; Kirby v. Lake 
Shore. & M. S. E. Co., 8 Fed. 462. 
Ala. — Evans v. Silvey & Co., 144 Ala. 
398, 42 So. 62; Davidson v. Weems, 58 
Ala. 187. Ga.— Louisville & N. E. Co. 
V. Morse, 143 Ga. 110, 84 S. E. 428. 
111.— Belton V. Fisher, 44 111. 32. Ind. 
Newman v. Gates, 165 Ind. 171, 72 N. 
E. 638; Nieklaus v. Dahn, 63 Ind. 87; 
Hayes v. Johnson, 56 Ind. App. 238, 
105 N. B. 164, complaint falls as to 
all plaintiffs, if representative joined. 
Ia. — Brown v. Allen, 35 Iowa 306; 
Childs, Sanford & Co. v. Hyde & Co., 
10 Iowa 294, 77 Am. Dec. 113. Ky. 
McCandless & Co. v. Hadden, 9 B. Mon. 
186. Md.— Harwood v. Jones, 10 Gill 

Vol. XXI 



102 



PABTNEBSHIP 



tive is improper, as is also his joinder as defendant.^* 

2. In Equity. — In equity the creditor can proceed against the 
estate of the deceased partner,^^ whether the survivors are solvent or 

not." „ 

3. Statutory or Code Provisions. — a. In General. — Statutes 
sometimes authorize an action upon a firm obligation against the estate 
of a deceased partner," or require the surviving partner to join the 
representative of the deceased partner." Under statutes allowing any 
person to be made a defendant who has or claims an interest in the 
controversy adverse to the plaintiff, the surviving partner is a neces- 
sary party to an action against partnership assets," and_ the repre- 
sentatives of the deceased partner are properly made parties, because 
they have an interest in the controversy.^'' 

b. Joint and Several Lialility. — In states where the firm obliga- 
tion is made joint and several, the creditor may proceed against the 
surviving members alone," or against the personal representatives of 



& J. 404, 32 Am. Dec. 180. Mich. 
Bassett v. Miller, 39 Mich. 133; Pfef- 
fer V. Steiner, 27 Mich. 537. N". Y. 
Daby v. Ericsson, 45 N. Y. 786; Voor- 
hia V. Childs' Exr., 17 N. Y. 354; Car- 
rere v. Spofford, 15 Abb. Pr. (N. S.) 
47, 46 How. Pr. 294. Tex. — Watson v. 
Miller, 55 Tex. 289. Wis. — Roys v. 
Vilas, 18 Wis. 169. Can.— Bolckow 
V. Foster, 25 Grant Ch. U. C. 476. 

[a] The objection that the admin- 
istrator is improperly joined is waived 
if not raised in the trial court. Bel- 
ton V. Fisher, 44 111. 32; Nicklaus v. 
Dahn, 63 Ind. 87. 

Joinder of parties under statute, see 
infra, 111, A, 3. 

11. U. S. — Brigham-Hopkins Co. 4?. 
Gross, 107 Fed. 769, Washington. Ga. 
Boss V. Everett's Exrs., 12 Ga. 30. 
Ind. — Braxton v. State ex rel. Albert, 
25 Ind. 82, common law rule. Ky. 
Southard v. Lewis, 4 Dana 148. IMiss. 
Eobertshaw v. Hanway, 52 Miss. 713, 
where the object of the proceeding is 
solely to reach the firm property, there 
is no necessity for joining the admin- 
istrator. N. J. — Eusling V. Brodhead, 
55 N. J. Eq. 200, 35 Atl. 841. N. C. 
Burgwin v. Hostler's Admr., 3 N. C. 
104, 1 N. C. 124, 1 Am. Dec. 582. 
Pa. — Hoskinson v. Eliot, 62 Pa. 393. 
S. C. — Fisher's Exra. v. Tucker's Rep- 
resentatives, 1 McCord Eq. 169. Tex. 
Lovelady v. Bennett (Tex. Civ. App.), 
30 S. W. 1124. 

12. V. S.— Nelson v. Hill, 5 How. 
127, 12 L. ed. 81. Ala.— Smith & Co. 
V. Mallory's Exr., 24 Aia. 628. Axk. 
McLnin v. Carson's Exr., 4 Ark. 164, 
37 Am. Dec. 777. Conn. — Camp v. 

Vol. XXI 



Grant, 21 Conn. 41, 54 Am. Dec. 321. 
Mich. — Manning v. Williams, 2 Mieh. 
105. N. Y. — Eieart v. Townsend, 6 
How. Pr. 460. 

[a] Statutes 4° not change this 
equity jurisdiction. Waldron, Isley & 
Co. V. Simmons, 28 Ala. 629; Moore 
Furniture Co. v. Prussing, 71 111. App. 
666. 

13. Fillyau v. Laverty, 3 Fla. 72; 
Doggett V. Dill, 108 111. 560, 48 Am. 
Rep. 565. But see Alsop v. Mather, 8 
Conn. 584. 

14. Ala. — Smith & Co. v. Mallory's 
Exr., 24 Ala. 628. Ark.— McLain v. 
Carson's Exr., 4 Ark. 164, 37 Am. Dec. 
777. N. Y. — Ricart v. Townsend, 6 
How. Pr. 460. 

[a] Provided insu£B.cient assets re- 
main in the hands of the surviving 
partners to pay the demand. Beaton 
V. Wade, 14 Colo. 4, 22 Pac. 1093. 

15. Hyde v. Brashear, 19 La. 402; 
Babcock v. Brashear, 19 La. 404; Con- 
nelly V. Cheevers, 16 La. 30; Cutler 
V. Cochran, 13 La. 482. 

[a] Incapacity of the surviving 
partner to sue alone may be shown 
under the general issue. Hyde v. 
Brashear, 19 La. 402; Notrebe v. Mc- 
Kinney, 6 Rob. (La.) 13. 

16. Ricart v. Townsend, 6 How. Pr. 
(N. Y.) 460. 

17. TI. S. — Robinson v. Hintrager, 36 
Fed. 752, the representative, in order 
to be made a party, must have an 
interest in the chose in action itself. 
N. Y. — Ricart v. Townsend, 6 How. 
Pr. 460. Va. — Jackson v. King's Rep- 
resentatives, 8 Leigh (35 Va.) 689. 

18. V. S.— Nelson v. Hill, 5 How. 



PARTNERSHIP 



103 



the deceased partner," or against both jointly.'"' 

c. Bond hy Surviving Partner. — Where a bond is required of the 
surviving partner,''^ it may,^^ or may not,^^ b6 considered a prerequisite 
to his suing in his capacity of survivor. 



127, 133, 12 L. ed. 81; Van Eeins- 
dyk V. Kane, 1 Gall. 630, 28 
Fed. Cas. No. 16,872. Ala.— Goldsmith 
V. Eiehold, 94 Ala. 116, 10 So. 80, 
33 Am. St. Rep. 97. Colo.— Doty v. 
Irwin-Phillips Co., 15 Colo. App. 96, 
61 Pae. 188. Fla.— Fillyau v. Laverty, 
3 Fla. 72. 111.— Doggett v. Dill, 108 
111. 560, 48 Am. Bep. 565; Silverman 
V. Chase, 90 111. 37; Mason v. Tiffany, 

45 111. 392. Ind. — Newman v. Gates, 
165 Ind. 171, 72 N. E. 638; Balston v. 
Moore, 105 Ind. 243, 4 N. E. 673. la. 
Postlewait v. Howes, 3 Iowa 365. Ky. 
Fennell v. Myers, 25 Ky. L. Eep. 589, 
76 S. W. 136." Mass. — Eiee, Appellant, 
7 Allen 112. Miss. — Irby v. Graham, 

46 Miss. 425. Ohio. — "Weil v. Guerin, 
42 Ohio St. 299. Tenn. — Saunders v. 
Wilder, 2 Head 577. Tex.— Gaut v. 
Eeed Bros. & Co., 24 Tex. 46, 76 Am. 
Dec. 94. Bng. — Devaynes v. Noble, 1 
Mer. 529, 35 Eng. Eeprint 767. 

19. U. S.— Nelson v. Hill, 5 How. 
127, 133, 12 L. ed. 81; Van Reins- 
dyk V. Kane, 1 Gall. 630, 28 Fed. 
Cas. No. 16,872. Ala.— Smith & Co. 
V. Mallory's Exr., 24 Ala. 628. 
Ark. — McLain v. Carson's Exr., 4 Ark. 
164, 37 Am. Dee. 777. CaL — Savings 
& Loan Society v. Gibb, 21 Cal. 595. 
Colo. — Doty V. Irwin-Phillips Co., 15 
Colo. App. 96, 61 Pac. 188. Conn. 
Filley v. Phelps, 18 Conn. 294. Fla. 
Fillyau v. Laverty, 3 Fla. 72. HI. 
Union Trust Co. v. Shoemaker, 258 111. 
564, 101 N. E. 1050; Doggett v. Dill, 
108 111. 560, 48 Am. Eep. 565; Silver- 
man V. Chase, 90 111. 37; Mason v. 
Tiffany, 45 111. 392. Ind. — Newman v. 
Gates, 165 Ind. 171, 72 N. E. 638; 
Ealston v. Moore, 105 Ind. 243, 4 
N. E. 673; Vance v. Cowing, 13 Ind. 
460. la. — Postlewait v. Howes, 3 
Iowa 365. Ky. — Maxey v. Averill's 
Exr., 2 B. Mon. 107. Miss. — Irby v. 
Graham, 46 Miss. 425. IT. J. — Hamers- 
ley V. Lambert, 2 Johns. Ch. 508, if 
the surviving partner is insolvent. 
Ohio.— Weil i>. Guerin, 42 Ohio St. 299. 
P^j— (BJair v. Woodj 108 Pa. 278; 
Brewster's Admx. v. Sterrett, 32 Pa. 
115; Lang v. Keppele, 1 Binn. 123; 
Creswell v. Blank, 3 Grant Cas. 320, 
action may be brought pending a 



suit against the survivors for the same 
oauso of action. Tenn. — Saunders v. 
Wilder, 2 Head 577. Tex,— Gaut v. 
Reed Bros. & Co., 24 Tex. 46, 76 Am. 
Dec. 94. Va. — Eobinson v. Allen, 85 
Va. 721, 8 S. E. 835. Eng. — Devagnes 
V. Noble, 1 Mer. 529; 35 Eng. Reprint 
767; In re Hodgson, L. E. 31 Ch. DiV. 
177. 

20. IT. S.— Nelson v. Hill, 5 How, 
127, 12 L. ed. 81; United States v. 
Hughes, 161 Fed. 1021. Ark.— Mc- 
Lain V. Carson's Exr., 4 Ark. 164, 37 
Am. Dec. 777. Ga. — Garrard v. Daw- 
son, 49 Ga. 434. Ind. — ^Braxton v. 
State ex rel. Albert, 25 Ind. 82. Miss. 
Irby V. Graham, 46 Miss. 425; Free- 
man V. Stewart, 41 Miss. 138. N. Y. 
Parker v. Jackson, 16 Barb. 33; Ric- 
art V. Townsend, 6 How. Pr. 460. N. C. 
Brown v. Clary, 2 N. C. 107. 
Ohio. — Weil v. Guerin, 42 Ohio St. 
299. Okla.— Walker Dry Goods Co. v. 
Blake, 158 Pac. 381. S. C— Wiesen- 
feld, Stern & Co. v. Byrd, 17 S. C. 106. 
Tenn.— Saunders v. Wilder, 2 Head 
577. 

But see Doty v. Irwin-Phillips Co., 
15 Colo. App. 96, 61 Pac. 188; Seran- 
ton Sav. Bank v. Scranton, 20 Pa. 
Dist. 829. 

[a] The statute permits the suit to 
be brought against the personal repre- 
sentatives separately or jointly with 
the survivors. Freeman v. Stewart, 
41 Miss. 138. 

21. U. S. — Harrington v. Horrick, 
64 Fed. 468, 12 C. C. A. 231. Me. 
Seruta v. Surace, 111 Me. 508, 90 Atl. 
328. Mo. — Hargadine v. Gibbons, 114 
Mo. 561, 21 S. W. 726. 

22. Seruta v. Surace, 111 Me. 508, 
90 Atl. 328. 

[a] Failure to do so is ground for 
plea in abatement, but is not reached 
by the general issue. Seruta v. Surace, 
m Me. 508, 90 Atl. 328. 

_[b] A receiver to wind up the af-. 
fairs of the partnership, may be ap- 
pointed at the instance of the legal 
representative when the survivor fails 
lo file a bond. Phoenix Ins. Go. v. 
Garnahan, 63 Ohio St. 258, 58 N. E. 
805. 

23. Hargadine v. Gibbons, 114 Mo. 

Vol. XXI 



104 



PARTNERSHIP 



d. Where Partner Not Administrator of Firm Assets. — If pur- 
suant to statutory authorization another than the surviving partner 
becomes administrator of the firm assets,^* suits in respect to such 
assets should, according as the statutes are worded or construed, be 
maintained by or against the administrator,^^ or the survivor.^* 

e. Probate Authorization To Sue. — The survivor may be required 
by statute to obtain authority from the probate court to sue the de- 
ceased partner's representatives.^' 

4. In Actions Between Survivor and Deceased's Representatives.^* 
The surviving partner, entitled to the possession and control of the 
firm property, may maintain appropriate actions against the personal 
representatives of a deceased partner to recover and protect such 
property ;^^ and after an accounting^" has been had between the part- 
ners or between the representative of a deceased partner and the 
survivor, an action may be maintained either by or against the 
representative to recover the agreed balance.'^ 

B. Pleadings. — 1. Complaint or Declaration. — In some juris- 
dictions the courts hold that a surviving partner may maintain an 
action in his own name for a debt incurred to the partnership during 



561, 21 S. W. 726; Crook v. Tull, 111 
Mo. 283, 20 S. W. 8; Holman v. Nance, 
84 Mo. 674; East on v. Courtwright, 84 
Mo. 27; Bredow v. Mutual Sav. Inst., 
28 Mo. 181; Meriwether v. Quincy, O. 
& K. C. E. Co., 128 Mo. App. 647, 107 
S. W. 434; Hargadine v. Gibbons, 4-5 
Mo. App. 460. 

[a] A debtor of the partnersbip 
cannot question the right of the sur- 
viving partners to proceed without 
qualifying. Hargadine v. Gibbons, 114 
Mo. 561, 21 S. W. 726. 

24. Harrington v. Herrick, 64 Fed. 
468, 12 C. C. A. 231; Bass v. Emery, 74 
Me! 338. 

[a] A failure of the survivor to 
qualify subjects him to being dis- 
placed by the administrator of the 
deceased's partner's estate qualifying 
as administrator of the partnership 
estate. Hargadine v. Gibbons, 114 
Mo. 561, 21 S. W. 726; Crook v. Tull, 
111 Mo. 283, 20 S. W. 8; Holman v. 
Nance, 84 Mo. 074; Bredow v. Mutual 
Sav. Inst., 28 Mo. 181; Meriwether v. 
Quincy, O. & K. C. E. Co., 128 Mo. App. 
647, 107 S. W. 434; Latimer v. New- 
man, 69 Mo. App. 76; Poppleton v. 
Jones, 42 Ore. 24, 69 Pac. 919. 

25. Bass V. Emery, 74 Me. 338. 

[a] Such Administrator Necessary 
Defendant. — Bass v. Emery, 74 Me. 
338. 

[b] After settlement of the estate, 
but not pending administration the 
survivor may be sued. Brigham-Hop- 

Vol. XXI 



kins Co. y. Gross, 30 Wash. 277, 70 Pae. 
480; Brigham-Hopkins Co. v. Gross, 20 
Wash. 218, 54 Pac. 1127. 

[c] In a suit upon partnership 
chose in action, the administrator of 
the partnership estate is the only 
necessary party plaintiff. Latimer v, 
Newman, 69 Mo. App. 76. 

26. Harrington v. Herrick, 64 Fed. 
468, 12 C. C. A. 231; Poppleton v. 
Jones, 42 Ore. 24, 69 Pac. 919. 

27. Babcock v. Brashear, 19 La. 
404; Hyde v. Brashear, 19 La. 402; 
Connelly v. Cheevers, 16 La. 30. 

28. As to actions between partners 
generally, see supra, I. 

29. Ala. — Calvert v. Marlow, 18 Ala. 
67. Nev. — Reese v. Kinkead, 17 Nev. 
447, 30 Pac. 1087. Ore. — Gardner v. 
Gillihan, 20 Ore. 598, 27 Pac. 220, sur- 
viving partner duly qualified as admin- 
istrator of the partnership estate aa 
required by the statute may maintain 
such an action. Wis. — Shields v. Ful- 
ler, 4 Wis. 102, 65 Am. Dec. 293. 

[a] Detinue for a note belonging 
to the firm. Calvert v. Marlow, 18 Ala. 
67. 

30. See supra, I, C. 

31. Johnson v. Peek, 58 Ark. 580, 
25 S. W. 865; Schmidt v. Glade, 12(1 
111. 485, 18 N. E. 762. 

[a] Assumpsit. — Schmidt v. Gladt, 
126 111. 485, 18 N. E. 762. 

[b] An action for contribution irill 
not lie in favor of the representatives 



PABTNERSHIP 



105 



its existence, without alleging the partnership,'^ the nature of the 
debt as a f-rm one,'' or the death of his co-partner and his survivor- 
ship.'* But other courts hold that such facts must be alleged,"* or, 
at least, that it is the better practice to do so.'° Non-payment of the 
claim or demand must be averred." 

In an action upon a co-partnership olDligation the survivor should be 
sued as such," and the contract sued upon should be described as 
made with the firm.'^ In an action against the representative of a 
deceased partner, if insolvency of the surviving partner is a condition 
precedent, it must be alleged.*" Where both the surviving partner 
and the representatives of the deceased are made defendants, the 



where no accounting has been had. 
Harris v. Harris, 39 N. H. 45. 

32. Smith v. Barrow, 2 Term 476, 
100 Eng. Eeprint 256; Hyat v. Hare, 
Comb. 383, 90 Eng. Eeprint, 543. 

33. Jemison v. Bearing's Exrs., 4i 
Ala. 283; Ward v. Dow, 44 N. H. 45. 

34. Conn. — Vandenheuvel v. Storrs, 
3 Conn. 203. Ind. — Culbertaon v. Town- 
send, 6 Ind. 64. Nev. — Keese v. Kin- 
kead, 17 Nev. 447, 30 Pac. 1087. N. H. 
Joysl-n V. Taylor, 24 N. H. 268; Ledden 
V. Colby, 14 N. H. 33, 40 Am. Dec. 173, 
death must be proved, although it need 
not be alleged. K. Y. — Grant v. Shurter, 
1 Wend. 148; Berolzhcimer v. Strauss, 
19 Jones & S. 96, 7 Civ. Proc. 225. 
E. I.— Hawkins v. Capron, 17 E. I. 679, 
24 Atl. 466, amendment allowing the 
partner to state that he is the surviv- 
ing member is unnecessarj-. Vt. — Hea- 
der V. Leslie, 2 Vt. 569. Wis.— Butler 
V. Kirby, 53 Wis. 188, 10 N. W. 373. 

fa] The omission to describe him- 
self as a survivor cannot affect the 
surviving partner's right to recover 
upon a partnership demand. Farwell 
V. Davis, 66 Barb. (N. Y.) 73. 

35. Ark. — Keith v. Pratt, 5 Ajk. 
661. Colo. — Smith v. Salomon, 1 Colo. 
176, 91 Am. Dec. 711. Mich.— Teller 
V. Wetherell, 9 Mich. 464. 

[a] The names of aU the partners 
should appear. Hubbell v. Skiles, 16 
Ind. 138. 

|b] Erroneous Appellation.*— 
Where plaintiffs in their petition style 
themselves i ' ' successors ' ' instead of 
surviving partners but allege that they 
were the only partners of the deceased 
partner at the time of his death, it 
states facts that would upon his death 
make them the surviving partners and 
is sufficient. Wright v. McCarapbell, 75 
Tex. 644, 13 8. W. 293. 

36. Reese v. Kinkead, 17 Nev. 447, 
30 Pac. 1087. 



[a] Form. — "That plaintiCE and 
one E. H. C, now deceased, were co- 
partners in business preceding and at 
the time of said C's death, which oc- 
curred on or about October 17, 18 — , 
and as such copartners did business 
under the style of C. & E., and were 
the owners in copartnership of the 
personal property hereinafter des- 
cribed; that plaintiff is the sole sur- 
viving partner of said copartnership, 
and now is the owner and entitled to 
the immediate possession" of the prop- 
erty described, etc. Eeese v. Kinkead, 
17 Nev. 447. 

37. Massey v. Pike, 20 Ark. 92. See 
generally the title "Payment." 

[a] Should aver (1) non-payment 
to firm or to the surviving partner. 
Massey v. Pike, 20 Ark. 92. (2) 
Where, in a suit by a surviving part- 
ner, he alleges the note sued on to have 
been made after the death of the part- 
ner, he need not negative payment to 
the deceased partner. Bonne v. Kay, 5 
Ark. 19. 

38. Black v. Struthers, 11 Iowa 
459. 

39. Black v. Struthers, 11 Iowa 
459. 

[a] Reason. — The contract should 
be described as made with the firm so 
that the defendant may later use the 
judgment as evidence against the es- 
tate of the deceased partner for con- 
tribution. Black V. Struthers, 11 Iowa 
459. 

40. Pearson v. Keedy, 6 B. Bon. 
(Ky.) 128, 43 Am. Dec. 160. 

[ a ] Sufficient A 1 1 e g a tion. — An 
averment that the surviving partner 
has been sued to insolvency, is equiva- 
lent to an allegation that the firm is 
insolvent. Daniel v. Townsend, Ar- 
nold & Co., 21 Ga. 155. 

Vol. XXI 



106 



PAETNEBSHIP 



prayer should specify the relief sought against each party.** 

2. Replication or Reply. — A replication by the administrator of 
a surviving partner, to a general plea of payment, must aver that 
payment was made to neither the surviving nor the deceased partner.*^ 

3. Amendments. — Where a surviving partner brings a suit in the 
name of the former firm, he may be allowed to amend by declaring as 
surviving partner.*' 

C. Judgment. — A judgment in a suit brought in the name of 
the surviving partner should be in favor of or against such partner 
individually.** A judgment against a surviving partner is enforce- 
able by execution against the firm assets under his control,*^ and in 
the absence of partnership assets is enforceable against his individual 
property.*^ 

IV, LIMITED PARTNERSHIPS. — A. Actions by or Against 
Limited Partnerships.*' — 1. Parties. — Statutes may permit lim- 
ited partnerships to sue and be sued in the partnership name,** or 
again they may authorize such suits to be prosecuted or defended in 
the name of the general partners,*' without joining the special part- 
ners, and these latter are neither necessary nor proper parties,^" and 



41. Eicart v. Townsend, 6 How. Pr. 
(N. Y.) 460. 

42. Lang v. Lewis' Admr., 1 Eand. 
(22 Va.) 277. 

43. O'Connell v. Schwanabeck, 76 
Mich. 517, 43 N. W. 599. 

44. Green v. Jones, 102 Ala. 303, 14 
So. 630. 

[a] If entered in favor of the 
partnership, it is irregular. Green v. 
Jones, 102 Ala. 303, 14 So. 630. 

45. Colo. — Thompson v. White, 25 
Colo. 226, 54 Pac. 718; Beaton v. Wade, 
14 Colo. 4, 22 Pac. 1093. N. J.— Hoflf- 
nian v. Westlecraft, 85 N. J. L. 484, 
89 Atl. 1006. W. Va.— Stampfle v. 
Bush, 71 W. Va., 659, 77 S. E. 283. 

46. Stampfle v. Bush, 71 W. Va. 659, 
77 S. E. 283. 

47. As to actions by or against a 
general partnership, see supra, II. 

48. IT. S. — Imperial Eefining Co. v. 
Wyman, 38 Fed. 574, 3 L. E. A. 503, 
Pennsylvania statute. Mich. — Sarmi- 
ento V. The Catherine C, 110 Mich. 
120, 67 N. W. 1085. Pa.— Street Ey. 
Pub. Co. V. Conner, 29 Pa. Co. Ct 241; 
Ladner v. Gibbon & Co., 5 Wkly. N. 
Cas. 127. 

49. Kan.^ — Spalding v. Black, 22 
Kan. 55. Md. — Safe Deposit & Trust 
Co. V. Cahn, 102 Md. 530, 62 Atl. 819. 
Mass. — Lawrence v. Batcheller, 131 
Mass. 304. N. Y. — Fuhrraann v. Von 
Pustau, 126 App. Div. 629, 111 N. Y. 
Supn. S4; Madison County Bank v. 
Gould, 5 Hill 309. Va.— McArthur v. 

Vol. XXI 



Chase, 13 Gratt. (54 Va.) 683. Can. 
Howland v. Bethune, 13 U. C. Q. B. 270. 

[a] Where one of the general part- 
ners is sued, he may plead in abate- 
ment the non-joinder of the other gen- 
eral partners. Howland v. Bethune, 13 
U. C. Q. B. 270. 

50. Kan.— Spalding v. Black, 22 
Kan. 55. La. — In re Dunn, 115 La. 
1084, 40 So. 466; Burt & Co. v. Laplace, 
114 La. 489, 38 So. 429. Mass.— Law- 
rence V. Batcheller, 131 Mass. 504. 
N. Y. — Eichter v. Poppenhausen, 42 N. 
Y. 373 (executor of deceased special 
partner not a proper party); Fuhr- 
mann v. Von Pustau, 126 App. Div. 
629, 111 N. Y. Supp. 34; Schulten v. 
Lord, 4 E. D. Smith 206; Phillips v. 
Stewart, Anth. N. P. (2d Ed.) 337. 
And see Durant v. Abendroth, 97 N. Y. 
132, wherein the court queried wheth- 
er a special partner is a necessary 
party to prooeedingsi in bankruptcy 
against the firm. Pa.— Street Ey. Pub. 
Co. V. Conner, 29 Pa. Co. Ct. 241. 
W Va.— Wetherill v. McCloskey Bros. 
& Co., 28 W. Va., 195. 

[a] Statutes apply only to domes- 
tic partnerships, so (1) when a special 
partnership formed under the laws of 
one state sues in another jurisdiction,' 
all the parties in interest must be 
made plaintiffs. Eosenberg v. Block, 
18 Jones & S. (N. Y.) 357. And (2) the 
fact that the law of the state under 
which it was formed provides that only 
the general partners are te be made 



PARTNERSHIP 



107 



can neither be sued alone for the debts of the firm,^^ nor maintain 
actions respecting the transactions of the limited partnership.^^ But 
a special partner whose contribution to the firm capital has been 
withdrawn on the dissolution of the partnership may be joined in 
an equity suit based upon the firm debt.°^ 

2. Pleadings. — Declaration or Complaint. —As a limited or special 
partnership is a creature purely of the statutes,^* the plaintiff, where 
he attempts to set up a limited partnership, must allege that all the 
steps requisite to the formation of such a partnership were taken.^^ 
But where a general partnership results from an attempt to form a 
limited partnership, by reason of failure to comply with the law gov- 
erning the latter, a plaintiff may sue the members as general partners 
without pleading the unsuccessful attempt to create a limited part- 
nership."* 

Plea or Answer.67 _ A defendant partner relying on the liability of 
a special partner must aver that he is such,°^ and set out all the facts 
showing compliance with the statute as to limited partnership.^* 

A replication where necessary should follow the general rules else- 
where treated.*" 

3. Judgment. — Since a special partner is neither a necessary nor 
proper party to actions with respect to the firm rights and obligations, 
a judgment against the firm is binding on the special partner to the 



parties will not render the special part- 
ner an improper or unnecessary party in 
the jurisdiction where the suit is in- 
stituted. Rosenberg v. Block, 18 
Jones & S. (N. Y.) 857. 

51. In re Dunn, 115 La. 1084, 40 
So. 466. 

[a] Even after a dissolution while 
the cash contribution still forms part 
of the partnership assets, the liabilities 
due by the firm should be enforced by 
suits against the general partners only. 
Safe Deposit & Trust Co. v. Cahn, 103 
Md. 530, 62 Atl. 819. 

52. Spalding v. Black, 22 Kan. 55; 
Brenes v. Hartman & Co., 8 Porto Bico 
360. 

53. Safe Deposit & Trust Co. v. 
Cahn, 102 Md. 530, 62 Atl. 819. 

54. See generally the statutes. 

55. Prince v. Lamb, 128 Cal. 120, 
60 Pae. 689; Henkel v. Hey man, 91 111. 
96. 

56. Continental Nat. Bank v. 
Strauss, 28 Jones & S. 151, 17 N. Y. 
Supp. 188 (affirmed, 137 N. Y. 148, 553, 
32 N. E. 1066) Sharp v. Hutchinson, 
100 N. Y. 533, 3 N. E. 500, 17 Jones & 
S. 50; Loomis v. Hoyt, 20 Jones & S. 
(N. Y.) 287; Stone v. De Puga, 4 
Sandf. (N. Y.) 681; Merchants' & 
Traders Bank v. Gardner, 31 Pa. Super. 
143. 



57. See generally the titles "An- 
swers;" "Denials;" "Pleas;" and 
titles dealing with particular kinds of 
pleas. 

58. Eawitzer v. Wyatt, 42 Fed. 287 
(answer held sufficient to withstand 
demurrer); Loomis v. Hoyt, 20 Jones & 
S. (N. Y.) 287; Stone v. De Puga, 4 
Sandf. (N. Y.) 681; Williams v. Kil- 
patrick, 21 Abb. N. C. (N. Y.) 61. 

[a] Where plaintiffs plead an un- 
successful attempt by defendants to 
form a limited partnership, defend- 
ants' denial must cover every material 
allegation showing the non-existence 
of a limited partnership. Siegel Bros. 
V. Wood, 3 Pa. Dist. 463. 

59. Conrow v. Gravenstine, 1 Sad. 
(Pa.) 480, 5 Atl. 43; Bergner & Engel 
Brew. Co. v. Cobb, 12 Pa. Co. Ct. 460. 
But see Bausman v. Rogers, 2 W. N. C. 
(Pa.) 428, an affidavit of defense stat- 
ing generally that the law regulating 
limited partnerships has been complied 
with, is sufficient. 

60. See the title "Replication and 
Reply." 

[a] Wl^ere defendant pleads that 
he is a special partner in a limited 
partnership formed in the statutory 
manner, plaintiff should reply alleging 
the specific violation of the statute 
relied on. Williams v. Balpatrick, 21 
Abb. N. C. (N. Y.) 61. 

Vol. xxr 



108 



PABTNEBSHIP 



extent of his interest in the firm,"' but if he is made a party and not per- 
sonally served, no valid personal judgment can be rendered against 
him."^ Where both general and special partners are sued and it 
appears at the trial that only the former are liable, judgment may 
go against them alone as though they were the only defendants.^^ 

B. Actions by or Between Special and Geneeal Partners. 
The statutory rule that the special partner cannot maintain an action 
in his own name,"* does not apply to any individual wrongs against 
him, though such wrongs arise out of the partnership relation 5"^ thus, 
a special partner may maintain an action in his own name against 
the general partners under the same circumstances, and for the same 
reasons, that one general partner can against another."* 

V. JOINT ADVENTURES. — A. Actions or Suits Between 
Plarties to."' — 1. Nature of Remedy. — One party to a joint ad- 
venture may sue the other at law for a breach of the contract,"^ or 
a share of the profits,"" or for a contribution for advances made in 



61. In re Dunn, 115 La. 10S4, 40 So. 
466; Artisans' Bank v. Treadwell, 34 
Barb. (l^'. Y.) 553. 

[a] A judgment against an im- 
properly joined special partner, may 
on proper showing be opened to 
such special partner to make his de- 
fense. Street Ry. Pub. Co. v. Conner, 
29 Pa. Co. Ct. 241; Hunt v. Jov, Haz- 
elton & Co., 1 W. N. C. (Pa.) 219. 

[b] The entire partnership prop- 
erty may be taken in satisi^action of 
judgment against the general partners. 
Phillips V. Stewart, Anth. N. P. 2d Ed. 
(N. Y.) 337. 

[e] Where a special partner has be- 
come liable as a general partner a 
judgment against the other partners 
does not merge or bar his individual 
liability. McArthur v. Chase, 13 
Gratt. (54 Va.) 683. 

62. Burt & Co. v. Laplace, 114 La. 
489, 38 So. 429. 

63. Safe Deposit & Trust Co. v. 
Cahn, 102 Md. 530, 62 Atl. 819 (stat- 
ute); Lawrence v. Merrifield, 10 Jones 
& S. (N. Y.) 36. 

[a] Costs. — The special partner is 
entitled to his costs in such event. 
Safe Deposit & Trust Co. V. Cahn, 102 
Md. 530, 62 Atl. 819. 

64. See supra, IV, A, 1. 

65. Spalding v. Black, 22 Kan. 55. 

66. Kan. — Spalding .v. Black, 22 
Kan. 55. La. — In re Dunn,, 115 La. 
1084, 40 So. 466 (accounting and dis- 
solution); Latting V. Fassman, Bryant 
& Co., 29 La. Ann. 280. N. Y.— Con- 
tinental Nat. Bank v. Strauss, 28 Jones 
& S. l.'Sl, 17 N. Y. SuT)p. 188, 4.'! N. Y. 
St. 68 (accounting and appointment of 

Vol. XXI 



receiver); Walkenshaw v. Per^el, 4 
Bob. 426, 32 How. Pr. 233 (action for 
money lent to the partnership) ; Hogg 
V. Ellis, 8 How. Pr. 473, accounting. 
Pa. — Smith v. Ervin, 168 Pa. 271, 31 
Atl. 1067 (account) ; McGteorge v. 
Chemical Mfg. Co., 141 Pa. 575, 21 Atl. 
671, action for debt. 

As to actions between partners gen- 
erally, see supra, I, A. 

[a] Insolvency of Firm. — Where 
the statutes relating to limited part- 
nerships generally provide that in 
case of the insolvency or bankruptcy 
of the partnership, a special partner 
cannot be allowed to claim as a cred- 
itor,_ until the claims of all the other 
creditors are satisfied, a special part- 
ner cannot under such circumstances 
maintain an action against the general 
partners for advances made to the iirm' 
over and above the amount of his con- 
tribution. Ward V. Newell, 42 Barb. 
(N. Y.) 482, 28 How. Pr. 102. 

67. As to suits by or between part- 
ners generally, see supra, I, A. 

68. Ala. — Saunders v. McDonough, 
191 Ala. 119, 67 So. 591. Colo.— Beck- 
with V. Talbot, 2 Colo. 639. Ga. 
Sloan V. Haley, 18 Ga. App. 631, 90 S. 
E. 74. Nev.— Lind v. Webber, 36 Nev. 
623, 134 Pac. 461, 135 Pac. 139, 141 
Pac. 458, Ann. Cas. 1916A, 1202, 50 
L. E.^A. (N. S.) 1046; Botsford v. Van 
Riper, 33 Nev. 156, 110 Pac. 705. N". Y, 
Taylor v. Bradley, 39 N. Y. 129, 4 Abb. 
Dec. 363, 100 Am. Dec. 415. Pa. 
Waring v. Cram, 1 Pars. Eq. Cas. 516. 

69. U. S.— Noyes v. Barnard, 63 
Fed. 782, 11 C. C. A. 424; Mann v. 
Kelly, 5 Fed. 584, 2 McCrary 628; 



PARTNEESHIP 



109 



excess of his share.'" An action of account stated/^ or assumpsit,'^ 
may be maintained by one party to a joint adventure against his 
associates where a balance has been agreed upon between them. Equity 
will where necessary order an accounting between the parties.'* 

2. Parties. — In an action by one of three joint adventurers to 
recover from one associate a proportionate share of losses borne by 
the plaintiff, the other associate need not be made a party.'* 

3. Pleading. — The bill for accounting of the transactions of a 
joint adventure must state facts showing a cause of action in the 



Hourquebie v Girard, 2 Wash. C. C. 
212, 12 Fed. Gas. No. 6,732. Ala. 
Saunders v. MeDonough, 191 Ala. 119, 
67 So. 591. HI. — Southworth v. Peo- 
ple, 183 111. 621, 56 N. E. 407; Gott- 
schalk V. Smith, 156 111. 377, 40 N. E. 
937; Hurley v. Walton, 63 111. 260; 
Barton v. Coulson, 196 111. App. 212. 
Nev.— Lind v. Webber, 36 Nev. 623, 
134 Pac. 461, 135 Pae. 139, 141 Pac. 
458, Ann. Gas. 1916 A, 1202, 50 L. E. 

A. (N. S.) 1046; Botsford v. Van Riper, 
33 Nev. 156, 110 Pae. 705. N. Y.— Fel- 
bel V. Kahn, 29 App. Div. 270, 51 N. Y. 
Supp. 435. N. 0. — Ledford v. Emer- 
son, 140 N. G. 288, 52 S. B. 641, 4 L. 
E. A. (N. S.) 130, 6 Ann. Gas. 107. Pa. 
Wright V. Cumpsty, 41 Pa. 102; 'Gal- 
breath V Moore, 2 Watts 86; Gleve- 
land V. Farrar, 4 Brewst. 27. W. Va. 
Annon v. Brown, 65 W. Va. 34, 63 S. 

B. 691. 

Action between partners on single 
transaction, see supra, I, A, 3 and 4. 

70. Ala. — Saunders v. MeDonough, 
191 Ala. 119, 67 So. 591. Cal.— Hum- 
burg V. Lotz, 4 Cal. App. 438, 88 Pac. 
510. Ind.— Brown v. Budd, 2 Ind. 442. 
Mass. — Williams v. HenBhaw, 11 Pick. 
79, 22 Am. Dee. 366. Mo. — Seehorn 
V. Hall, 130 Mo. 257, 32 S. W. 643, 51 
Am. St. Eep. 562. Ner. — Lind v. 
Webber, 36 Nev. 623, 134 Pac. 
461, 135 Pac. 139, 141 Pac. 458, 
Ann. Gas. 1916A, 1202, 50 L. E. A. 
(N. S.) 1046; Botsford v. Van Eiper, 
33 Nev. 156, 110 Pae. 705. N. Y. 
Kimball v. Williams, 51 App. Div. 616, 
65 N. Y. Supp 69; Burleigh v. Bevin, 
22 Misc. 38, 48 N. Y. Supp. 120; Pel- 
tier V. Sewall, 12 Wend. 386. Pa. 
Wright V. Gumpsty, 41 Pa. 102; Brady 
V. Colhonn, 1 Pen. & W. 140. K. I. 
Fry V. Potter, 12 E. I. 542. Tex.— Gar- 
rison V, Bowman (Tex. Civ. App.), 183 
8. W. 70. Wash. — Peterson v. Nich- 
ols, 90 Wash. 398, 156 Pac. 406. W. Va. 
Kaufman v. Catzen, 94 S. E. 388. Wis. 



Jones V. Kinney, 146 Wis. 130, 131 N. 
W. 339, Ann. Gas. 1912 G, 200. 

71. MaePherson v. Harding, 40 App. 
Cas. (D. C.) 404. 

72. Cleveland v. Farrar, 4 Brewst. 
(Pa.) 27. 

73. U. S. — ^Bernitt v. Smith-Powers 
Logging Co., 213 Fed. 378; Hourque- 
bie V. Girard, 2 Wash. C. G. 212, 12 Fed. 
Cas. No. 6,732, if joint adventure trans- 
action is not closed, accounting is the 
proper remedy. Ala. — Saunders v. Me- 
Donough, 191 Ala. 119, 67 So. 591. Cal. 
Bedolla v. Williams, 15 Gal. App. 738, 
115 Pac. 747. 111.— Edwards v. Hud- 
son, 165 111. App. 521. Kan.— Painter 
V. Hines, 86 K^n. 832, 122 Pac. 1036. 
Mich. — TurnbuU v. Monaghan, 94 
Mich. 87, 53 N. W. 924; Petrie v. Tor- 
rent, 88 Mich. 43, 49 N. W. 1076; 
Cochrane v. Adams, 50 Mich. 16, 14 N. 
W. 681. Nev.— Lind v. Webber, 36 
Nev. 623, 134 Pac. 461, 135 Pac. 139, 
141 Pac. 458, Ann. Cas. 1916 A, 1202, 
50 L. E. A. (N. S.) 1046; Botsford v. 
Van Eiper, 33 Nev. 156, 110 Pac. 705. 
N. J. — Vermeule v. Vermeule, 82 N. J. 
Eq. 434, 89 Atl. 535; Simmons v. Lima 
Oil Co., 71 N. J. Eq. 174, 63 Atl. 258; 
Warwick v. Stockton, 55 N. J. Eq. 61, 
36 Atl. 488; Seudder v. Budd, 52 N. J. 
Eq. 320, 26 Atl. 904; Eoss v. Stevens, 
45 N. J. Eq. 231, 11 Atl. 114, 13 Atl. 
225, 19 Atl. 622. N. Y.— Marston v. 
Gould, 69 N. Y. 220; Lobsitz ;;. Liss- 
berger Co., 168 App. Div. 840, 154 N. 
Y. Supp. 556; Hill v. Curtis, 154 App. 
Div. 662, 139 N. Y. Supp. 428; Bow- 
man V. Furber, 152 App. Div. 647, 137 
N. Y. Supp. 560; Eice v. Peters, 128 
App. Div. 776, 113 N. Y. Supp. 40; 
Bradley v. Wolff, 40 Misc. 592, 83 N. Y. 
Supp. 13.- 

As to accounting between partners 
see supra, I, C. 

74. Burleigh v. Bevin, 22 Mise. 38, 
48 N. Y. Supp. 120. 

[a] Non-resident Associate. — An- 
gell V. Lawton, 76 N. Y. 540. 

Vol ZZI 



110 



PABTNEBSHIP 



plaintiff.'^ Thus a bill to compel an aceountinfj under a contract by 
which complainant is to receive a portion of the profits of the ad- 
venture must show that the joint venture had reached determination 
and profit had been made,'" or that the venture had reached a point 
where the defendant had been reimbursed his outlay, so that a profit 
was being currently made,''' or that defendant was misconducting him- 
self with respect- to the business.'* 

Set-off or Counterclaim. —Any claim or demand arising out of the 
transaction of the joint adventure may be set off by the defendant 
against the demand of his associate.'^ 

B. Actions by or Against Third Persons.*" — Usually all the 
joint adventurers must join in an action against a third person for 
a debt due the joint enterprise,*^ but where one member of a joint 
adventure carries on the business in his name and is dealt with as the 
only party in interest, he may maintain an action, without joining 
his associate, for a breach of a contract arising out of the joint ad- 
venture,*^ and an action may be maintained against him without join- 
ing his associates.** 



75. Lobsitz v. Lissberger Co., 168 
App. Div. 840, 154 N. T. Supp. 556; 
Jones V. McNally, 53 Miae. 59, 103 N. 
Y. Supp. 1011; Parker v. Turner, 8 ]S. 
T. St. 500, cause of action stated. 

Simmons v. Lima Oil Co., 71 N. 
174, 63 Atl. 258. 

Simmons V. Lima Oil Co., 71 N. 
J. Eq. 174, 63 Atl. 258. 
78. Simmons v. Lima Oil Co., 71 N. 
174, 63 Atl. 258. 
Parker v. Turner, 8 N. T. St. 
500; Botsford v. Van Eiper, 33 Nev. 
156, 110 Pac. 705. 

[a] ' An amount spent in further- 
ance of the transaction may be coun- 
terclaimed for by defendant in an ac- 
tion to recover an interest in the pro- 



76. 

J. Eq, 

77. 



J. Eq. 
79. 



ceeds of the adventure. Botsford v. 
Van Riper, 33 Nev. 156, ilO Pac. 705. 
[b] A claim of the defendant 
against firms of which plaintiff is a 
member cannot be set oS in a suit .for 
an accounting of a joint adventure. 
Turner v. Weston, 61 Hun 624, 16 N. 
Y. Supp. 772, 40 N. Y. St. 962. 

80. As to partnership actions by 
or against third persons generally, see 
supra, II. 

81. Bernitt v. Smith-Powers Log- 
ging Co., 184 Fed. 139. 

82. Howe V. Savory, 49 Barb. (N. 
Y.) 403; Kreisle v. Wilson (Tex. Civ. 
App.), 148 S. W. 1132. 

83. Secor v. Law, 4 ABb. D6c. (N. 
Y.) 188, 3 Keyes 525. 



PART PERFORMANCE. — See FraAds, Statute of; Specific Perform- 
ance. 

Vol XZI 



PARTY WALLS 



By the Editorial Staff. 



I. NATURE AND POEM OP ACTIONS, 111 

II. PARTIES, 112 

III. PLEADINGS, 112 

IV. QUESTIONS- POE COURT AND JURY, 112 

CBOSS-BEFEBEKCES: 

Adjoining Landowners. 

For further references and cross-references, see the index to this 
work and the cross-references throughout this article. 

Scope Note. — This article treats only of suits or actions relating 
to party walls. 

I. NATURE AND PORM OP ACTIONS. — An action at law, such 
as assumpsit, is a proper remedy to recover the proportionate cost of 
a party M'all, built under a party-wall agreement.^ An adjoining 
owner may be restrained by injunction from the use of the party 
wall until the price is paid.^ Injunction may be resorted to when 
one adjoining owner threatens to increase the height of a party wall 
or make other alterations which will cause irreparable injury to an 
adjoining owner ;^ but equity will not compel the removal of pro- 
jections from a party wall where the adjoining owner has been tardy 
in asserting his rights.* Mandatory injunction is the proper remedy 



1. Ark. — See Eugg v. Lemly, 78 
Ark. 65, Q'S S. W. 570, 115 Am. St. 
Eep. 17, 8 Ann. Cas. 291. HI.— Evans 
V. Howell, 211 111. 85, 71 N. E. 854. 
I».— Swift V. Calnan, 102 Iowa 206, 
71 N. W, 233, 63 Am. St. Kep. 443, 37 
L. E. A. 462. Mass. — Walker v. Stet- 
son, 162 Mass. 86, 38 N. E. 18, 44 Am. 
St. Eep. 350; Eiehardson v. Tobey, 121 
Mass. 457, 23 Am. Eep. 283. N. Y. 
Eindge v. Baker, 57 N. Y. 209, 15 Am. 
Eep. 475. See also Brown v. McKee, 
57 N. Y. 684. 

2. Eoberts v. Bye, 30 Pa. 375, 72 
Am. Dee. 710. 

[a] But equity will not enjoin the 
use of a party wall aa long as it is al- 



lowed to project over defendant 's land. 
Escondido Bank v. Thomas (Cal.), 41 
Pac. 462; Guttenberger v. Woods, 51 
Cal. 523. 

3. Ala. — Graves v. Smith, 87 Ala. 
450, 6 So. 308, 13 Am. St. Eep. 60, 
5 L. E. A. 298. Md. — Coggins v. Carey, 
106 Md. 204, 66 Atl. 673, 124 Am. St. 
Eep. 468, 10 L. E. A. (N. S.) 1191. 
Mo. — Harber v. Evans, 101 Mo. 661, 
14 S. W. 750, 20 Am. St. Eep. 646, 
10 L. E. A. 41. Neb.— Calmelet v. 
Sichl, 48 Neb. 505, 67 N, W. 467, 58 
Am. St. Eep. 700. 

4. Walsh V. Luburg, 10 Pa. Co. Ct. 
641, proper remedy is by action for 
damages. 

Vol. XSl 



112 



PABTY WALLS 



to compel a party to a party-wall agreement to construct a solid wall, 
as required by the contracl, where the wall constructed has numerous 
openings and necessarily depreciates the value of the other's property.* 
Ejectment will lie by an adjoining owner for the encroachment of a 
party wall on his lot." Case is the proper action to recover for 
negligent construction of a party wall causing damage to adjoining 
land.^ 

II. PARTIES to suits or actions relating to party walls are gov- 
erned, in the main, by the general rules governing parties.* 

III. PLEADINGS in suits or actions relating to party walls are 
governed, in the main, bv the general rules.* 

IV. QUESTIONS FOR COURT AND JURY. — The general rule 
obtains in actions relating to party walls that questions of fact upon 
which the evidence is conflicting are for the jury to determine.^" 



5. Ill.-^Springer v. Darlington, 207 
111. 238, 69 N. E. 946. Md.— Coggins 
V. Carey, 106 Md. 204, 66 Atl. 673, 
124 Am. St. Eep. 468, 10 L. E. A. 
(N. S.) 1191. N. Y.— Cutting v. Stokes, 
72 Hun 376, 25 N. Y. Supp. 365, 55 
N. Y. St. 184. 

See, however, Eeynolds v. Union Sav. 
Bank, 155 Iowa 519, 136 N. W. 529, 49 
L. E. A. (N. S.) 194, holding that 
equity will merely require that if at 
any time the adjoining owner desires 
to utilize the wall for building pur- 
poses, the other owner shall close all 
apertures therein at his own expense. 

As to injunctions generally, see the 
title ' ' Injunctions. ' ' 

6. Cautley v. Morgan, 51 W. Va. 
304, 41 S. E. 201. 

Action of ejectment generally, see 
the title "Ejectment." 

7. Moody V. McClelland, 39 Ala. 
45, 84 Am. Dec. 770. 

8. See generally the title "Par- 
ties," and infra, this note. 

[a] Where the party erecting the 
Wall is dead, his administrator may 
bring an action to recover one-half 
the expense of erection due from the 
adjoining owner. Burlock v. Peck, 2 
Duer (N. Y.) 90. 

[b] In an action between joint- 
owners of a party wall to compel the 
removal of an addition to the wall, 
mortgagees of the defendant's lot are 

Vol. XXI 



necessary parties to the suit. Everett 
V. Edwards (Mass.), 22 N. E. 52. 

9. See generally the titles "An- 
swers;" "Bills and Answers;" "Dec- 
laration and Complaint," etc. 

[a] A bill in equity to enforce 
contribution is defective when there 
is no allegation of any agreement for 
such contribution. McCord v. Herriek, 
18 111. App. 423. 

[b] In a complaint for infringe- 
ment of the right to support of a par- 
ty wall, allegations of negligence in 
making the excavations which affect- 
ed plaintiff's wall are unnecessary, 
and do not change the nature of the 
action. Cartwright v. Adair, 27 Ind. 
App. 293, 61 N. E. 240. 

. 10. See infra, this note, and gen- 
erally the title "Province of Judge 
and Jury." 

[a] Thus (1) in an action to re- 
cover one-half the cost of a party-wall 
under an agreement for its erection, 
the question whether the wall is capa- 
ble of similar use by both parties is 
one of fact for the jury. Hammann 
V. Jordan, 129 N. Y. 61, 29 N. E. 294. 
So (2) the question, whether a wall 
was fairly built, half and half, or 
unfairly built and intentionally eln- 
croaching on the defendant's premises, 
is one for the jury. Beading v. Bar- 
nard, 1 Moody & M. 71, 22 B. C. L. 
475, 



PASSENGERS 

By the Editorial Sta£P. 



I. ACTIONS BY CARRIERS, 118 

A. For Fares and Relating to Nontransferable Tickets, 116 

B. Enforcing and Obtaining Belief FrOm Bates Fixed by 

Legislative Power, 117 

II. ACTIONS AGAINST CARRIERS, 117 

A. Matters Belating to Actions Generally, 117 

1. Form of Action, 117 

2. Process, 118 

3. Declaration or Complaint, 118 

a. Alleging Corporate Capacity of Defendant, 118 

b. Showing Belation of Carrier and Passenger, 118 
(I.) Necessity for, 118 

(II.) Manner of, 118 
e. Alleging Contract, 120 

4. Plea or Anstver, 120 

5. Issues, Proof and Variance, 121 

6. Questions of Law and Fact, 121 

7. Costs, 122 

B. Particular Actions, 122 

1. Actions Ex Contractu, 122 

a. Jurisdiction and Venue, 122 

b. Parties, 122 

c. Declaration or Complaint, 123 

d. Answer or Plea, 123 

e. Issues, Proof and Variance, 123 

2. Actions Ex Delicto, 123 

a. Actions Arising Out of Breach, of Contract or 
Duty To Transport, 123 
(I.) Generally, 123 

(A.) For Befusal To Carry, 123 

(B.) Where Passenger Presents Improper 

Ticket or Transfer, 124 
(C.) Where Passenger Is Given Incorrect 
Information as to Trams, 125 
(II.) Jurisdiction and Verme, 126 
(III.) Parties, 126 
(IV.) Declaration or Complaint, 126 
(A.) Generally, 126 
(B.) For Befusal of Carriage, 126 
(C.) For Failure To Give Passenger Time 
To Board or Alight, 127 

g Vol. XXI 



114 PASSENGERS 

(D.) For Setting Passenger Down ai 

Wrong Destination, 127 
(E,) For Negligent Giving of Wrong 

Tickets or Information, 128 
(F.) For Denial of Accommodations, 128 
(V.) Demurrer and Answer, 128 
(VI.) Variance, 128 
(VII.) Questions of Law and Fact, 128 
b. Actions for Personal Injuries, 129 
(I.) Form of Action, 129 
(II.) Conditions Precedent, 129 
(III.) Jurisdiction and Venue, 130 
(A.) Generally, 130 
(B.) Change of Venue, 130 
(IV.) Parties, 131 
^ iy.) Declaration or Complaint, 132 

(A.) Matters Relating to Complaints 
Generally, 132 
(1.) Generally, 132 
(2.) Alleging Relation of Carrier 

and Passenger, 132 
(3.) Alleging Duties of Carrier, 133 
^ (4.) Alleging Negligence, 133 

(5.) Allegations as to Employes, 
' ■ 134 

(a.) Generally, 134 
(b.) Alleging Acts To Be in 
Scope of Employment, 
> 135 

'(6.) Negativing Contributory Neg- 
ligence, 136 
(7.) Injury and Damage, 136 
(8.) Joinder of Actions and DU' 

plicity, 136 
(9.) Amendment, 137 
[(B.) Allegations in Particular Cases, 137 
(1.) Defective Condition of Premises 
and Insufficient Accommoda- 
tions at Stations, 137 
(2.) Failure To Assist Passengers 
To Board or Alight and From 
Alighting at Unsafe Places, 
137 
(3.) Alighting From Crowded 

Cars, 139 
(4.) Sudden Starting, Jerking, or 
Lurching of Train or Car, 139 
(5.) Alighting From Moving Train 

or Car, 141 
(6.) Collision, 142 

Vol. XZI 



PAS8EN0EBS 115 

(7.) Derailment, 143 

(8.) Jostling of Passengers, 144 

(9.) Failure To Properly Heat 

Cars, 144 
(10.) Jumping From Cars on Ap- 

pearance of Danger, 144 
(11.) Assault hy Employes and Ser- 
vants, 144 
(12.) Assault and Disorderly Con- 
duct of Fellow Passengers, 
145 
(13.) Injuries hy Elevators, 14'5 
(VI.) Answer or Plea, 146 
(VII.) Issues, 146 , 

(VIII.) Variance and Proof, 147 
(IX.) Questions of Law and Fact, 149 
(A.) Generally, 149 
(B.) Negligence, 149 
(C.) Contributory Negligence, 150 
(1.) In General, 150 
(2.) In Boarding or Alighting 

From Moving Car, J.50 
(3.) In Exposing Body Beyond 
Side of Car, 152 
Actions for Ejection of Passengers and Tres- 
passers, 153 
(I.) Form of Action, 153 
(II.) Venue, 154 
(III.) Parties, 154 
(IV.) Declaration or Complaint, 154 
(A.) In General, 154 
(B.) Particular Allegations, 155 

(1.) Plaintiff's Bight To Be on 
Train or Car, 155 
(a.) In General, 155 
(b.) Tendering Ticket or 

Fare, 155 
(c.) That Train Scheduled To 
Stop at Plaintiff's Des- 
tination, 156 
(d.) Compliance With Rules 
and Conditions in Tick- 
et, 156 
(2.) Allegations as to Ejection, 156 
(a.) In General, 156 
(b.) Negligence and Contribu- 
tory Negligence,- 158 
(3.) Allegations of Damage, 158 
(4.) Joinder of Causes of Action, 
158 

Vol. XXI 



116 PA8SEN0EBS 

(5.) Amendment, 158 
(V.) Answer or Plea, 158 
(VI.) BepUcation, 159 
(VII.) Issues, Proof and Variance, 159 
(VIII.) Questions of Law and Fact, 160 

3. Actions Relating to Transportation in Sleeping Cars, 

161 

4. Actions for Damage, Loss or Delay of Baggage and 

Personal Effects, 162 

a. Form and Bight of Action, 162 
(I.) In General, 162 

(II.) As Affected by Character and Ownership 
of Baggage, 162 

b. Venue, 163 
<5. Parties, 164 

d. Pleadings, 164 

(I.) Declaration and Complaint, 164 
(II.) Answer or Plea, 165 
(III.) BepUcation, 166 

e. Variance, 166 

f. Questions of Law and Fact, 166 

5. Suits or Actions Belatinig to Excessive Fares and 

Befusal To Issue Transfers, 168 

a. Actions for Penalties, 168 

b. Injunction, 169 

CSOSS-BEFEBENCES: 

Freight Carriers; Railroads; 

Injuries to Persons and Property; Ships and Shipping; 

Negligence; Street Railroads. 

For forms, see 9 Standard Proc. 940, et seq. 

For further references and cross-references, see the index to this 
work and the cross-references throughout this article. 

I. ACTIONS BY CARRIERS. — A. For Fares and Relating to 
Nontransferable Tickets. — A passenger carrier may bring an action 
on contract to recover the amount of the transportation charges of 
a passenger.^ It may sue in equity to cancel a nontransferable ticket 
sold by the purchaser,^ or at law for breach of the contract, if it has 
been used.^ Likewise the carrier may enjoin a ticket broker from 
dealing in special nontransferable tickets.* 



1. Bush V. Cole, 128 Ark. 411, 194 
S. W. 24; New York & N. B. E. Co. v. 
Feely, 163 Mass. 205, 40 N. E. 20. 

2. Schubaeh v. McDonald, 179 Mo. 
163, 191, 78 S. W. 1020, 101 Am. St. 
Eep. 452, 65 L. E. A. 136. 

3. Schubaeh v. McDonald, 179 Mo. 

Vol. XXI 



163, 193, 78 S. W. 1020, 101 Am. SI. 
Rep. 452, 65 L. E. A. 136. 

4. See the following: TJ, S. — Bit- 
terman v. Louisville & N. E. Co., 207 
U. S. 205, 28 Sup. Ct. 91, 52 L. ed. 171, 
12 Ann. Gas. 693; Missouri, K. & T. R. 
Co. V. MeCrary, 182 Fed. 401; Penn- 



PASSENGERS 



117 



B. Enforcing and Obtaining Relief From Rates Fixed by Legis- 
lative Power. — The maimer of enforcing and of obtaining relief 
from passenger rates fixed by legislative power is treated in a subse- 
quent title.* 

II. ACTIONS AGAINST CARRIERS. — A. Matters Relating 
to Actions Generally. — 1. Form of Action. — Generally a pas- 
senger has an election to sue a carrier either in tort or contract for 
breach of a contract of transportation, or the duties implied there- 
from.' If a passenger is injured by the concurring negligence of the 



sylvania Co. v. Bay, 150 Fed. 770. 
Oolo. — Kirby v. TJnion Pac. E. Co., 51 
Colo. 509, 119 Pae. 1042, Ann. Cas. 
1913B, 461. Mo.— Schubach v. Mc- 
Donald, 179 Mo. 163, 192, 78 S. W. 
1020, 101 Am. St. Eep. 452, 65 L. E. 
A. 136. N. Y.— Long Island E. Co. v. 
Laniee, 136 N. Y. Supp. 138. Com- 
pare New York Cent. & H. E. E. Co. 
V. Eeeves, 41 Misc. 490, 85 N. Y. Supp. 
28. OUo. — Kinner v. Lake Shore & 
M. S. Ey. Co., 69 Ohio St. 339, 69 N. 
E. 614. Tex. — Lytl© v. Galveston, H. 
& S. A. E. Co., 100 Tex. 292, 99 S. W. 
.396, 10 L. E. A. (N. S.) 437 (Tex. 
Civ. App.), 100 S. W. 199. 

[a] Injunction Against Illegal 
Dealings in Tickets Which May Be 
Issued in the Future. — Bitterman v. 
Louisville & N. E. Co., 207 U. S. 205, 28 
Sup. Ct. 91, 52 L. ed. 171, 12 Ann. Cas. 
693. See Lytle v. Galveston, H. & S. A. 
E. Co., 100 Tex. 292, 99 S. W. 396, 10 L. 
E. A. (N. S.) 437 (Tex. Civ. App.), 
100 S. W. 199. 

[b] Action Is Transitory. — Kirby 
V. TJnion Pac. E. Co., 51 Colo. 509, 119 
Pac. 1042, Ann. Cas. 1913B, 461. 

[e] How jurisdictional amount of 
the suit is determined, see Bitterman 
V. Louisville & N. E. Co., 207 U. S. 
205, 225, 28 Sup. Ct. 91, 52 L. ed. 171, 
12 Ann. Cas. 693, (afflrmmg 144 Fed. 
34, 75 C. C. A. 192); Delaware, L. & 
W. E. Co. V. Frank, 110 Fed. 689. 

[d] Several ticket brokers or 
scibpers may be joined as parties de- 
fendant. Bitterman «. Louisville & 
N. E. Co., 207 U. S. 205, 28 Sup. Ct. 
91, 52 L. ed. 171, 12 Ann. Cas. 693; 
Pennsylvania Co. v. Bay, 150 Fed. 770. 
But see New York Cent. & H. E. E. 
Co. V. Eeeves, 41 Misc. 490^ 85 N. Y. 
Supp. 28. 

5. See the title "Public Serrice 
Corporations." 

As to criminal prosecutions for 
fraudulently obtaining illegal rate, see 
14 Standard Peoc. 279. 



6. See the following: Ky. — Louis- 
ville & N. E. Co. V. Storms, 15 Ky. L. 
Eep. 333, where .passenger is not car- 
ried or payment of fare a second time 
is compelled. Miss. — Alabama & V. E. 
Co. V. Hanes, 69 Miss. 160, 13 So. 246; 
New Orleans, J. & G. N. E. Co. v. Hurst, 
36 Miss. 660, 74 Am. Dee. 785, where 
carrier failed to stop at station. S. C. 
Cave V. Seaboard A. L. Ey., 94 S. C. 
282, 77 S. E. 1017, Ann. Cas. 1915A, 
1065, L. E. A. 1915B, 915 (where 
carrier failed to provide seat); Pickens 
V. South Carolina & G. E. Co., 54 S. C. 
498, 32 S. E. 567. W. Va..— Jenkins v. 
Chesapeake & O. E. Co., 61 W. Va. 597, 
57 S. E. 48, 49 L. E. A. (N. S.) 1166. 

[a] Failure to stop a train at 
plaintiff's destination as agreed. Ev- 
ansville & T. H. E. Co. v. Wilson, 20 
Ind. App. 5, 50 N. E. 90; Evansville & 
E. E. Co. V. Kyte, 6 Ind. App. 52, 32 
N. E. 1134; Owens v. Atlantic C. L. E. 
Co., 147 N. C. 357, 61 S. B. 198. 

[b] Postal clerks cannot (1) base 
their right to recovery upon the con- 
tract between the railroad company 
and the government (Southern E. Co. 
V. Harrington, 166 Ala. 630, 52 So. 57, 
139 Am. St. Eep. 59), although (2) 
they may sue in court for breach of 
duty owing from a carrier to its pas- 
sengers. Southern E. Co. v. Harring- 
ton, 166 Ala. 630, 52 So. 57, 139 Am. 
St. Eep. 59; Lindsey v. Pennsylvania 
E. Co., 26 App. Cas. (D. C.) 503, 3 L. 
E. A. (N. S.) 218: Chesapeake & O. 
E. Co. V. Patton, 23 App. Cas. (D. C.) 
113, 121. 

As to actions ex contractu, see infra, 
n, B, 1. 

As to actions for injuries^ see infra, 
II, B, 2, b, (I). 

As to actions arising out of breach 
of contract of transportation, see infra, 
II, B, 2, a, (I). 

As to actions for wrongful ejec- 
tion; see infra, II, B, 2, c, (I). 

Vol. XXI 



118 



PASSENGERS 



carrier and another, he may bring an action in tort against ' either 
or both/ or an action based on the contract against his carrier.* 
Whether an action is ex contractu or ex delicto must be determined by 
the pleadings,^ considering, under the reformed procedure, the sub- 
stance of the whole statement of the cause of action, rather than the 
mere formal language in which it is expressed.^" The inclination of 
the courts is toward treating actions against carriers as sounding in 
tort." ' 

2. Process. — Carriers must be served with process in accordance 
with the general rules relating thereto.^^ 

3. Declaration or Complaint. — a. Alleging Corporate Capacity 
of Defendant}^ — If the carrier of passengers is a corporation, the 
complaint should set out its corporate capacity.^* 

b. Showing Relation of Carrier and Passenger. — (I.) Necessity for.is 
In tort actions against carriers of passengers, based upon the rela- 
tionship of carrier and passenger, the complaint or declaration must 
show the existence of such relationship.^" 

<II.) Manner of — Ultimate facts^' showing the existence of such 



As to actions relating to baggage, 
see infra, II, B, 4. 

As to actidns for penalties, see infra, 
II, B, 2, a, (I). 

7. See infra, II, B, 2. 

8. Wabash, St. L. & P. Ey. Co. v. 
Shacklet, 105 111. 364, 379, 44 Am. Eep. 
791, he cannot sue the other person or 
carrier ex contractu. 

9. Union Pac. E. Co. v. Shook, 3 
Kan. App. 710, 44 Pac. 685. 

10. Ark. — ^Fordyce -i;. Nix, 58 Ark. 
136, 23 S. W. 967. Ky.— McMurtry ». 
Kentucky Cent. E. Co., 84 Ky. 462, 1 
S. W. 815. Miss. — New Orleans, J. & 
G. N. E. Co. V. Hurst, 36 Miss. 660, 
665, 74 Am. Dec. 785. Tex. — Galves- 
ton, H. & S. A. E. Co. V. Eoemer, 1 
Tex. Civ. App. 191, 20 S. W. 843. 

See 4 Standard Pboc. 625 ; 10 Stand- 
ard Peoc. 222. 

[a] Allegation that plaintiff pur- 
chased a ticket is Insufficient to show 
that action is upon contract. Fremont 
E. & M. V. E. Co. V. Hagblad, 72 Neb. 
773, 101 N. W. 1033, 106 N. W. 1041, 
4 L. E. A. (N. S.) 254. 

11. See the following: Ind. — Pitts- 
burgh, C. C. & St. L. Ey. Co. v. Higgs, 
165 Ind. 694, 76 N. E. 299, 4 L. E. A. 
(N. S.) 1081. Miss.— New Orleans, J. 
& G. N. E. Co. V. Hurst, 36 Miss. 660, 
665, 74 Am. Dee. 785. Wis.— Brown 
V. Chicago, M. k St. P. Ey. Ci)., 54 
Wis. 342, 11 N. W. 356, 911, 41 Am. 
Eep. 41; Walsh v. Chicago, M. & St. 
P. Ey. Co., 42 Wis. 23, 24 Am. Eep. 

Vol. XXI 



376, holding action to be on special 
contract. 

12. See generally the title "Pro- 
cess." 

Persons on whom service must be 
made, see 5 Stand.\rd Peoc. 624. 

13. Generally, see 5 Standaed Peoc. 
652. 

14. Galveston, H. & S. A. E. Co. v. 
Smith, 81 Tex. 479, 17 S. W. 133. 

15. Presumptions as to relationship, 
see 2 Ency. op Ev. 904. 

16. Brown v. Chicago, M. & St. P. 
Ey. Co., 54 Wis. 342, 11 N. W. 356, 
911, 41 Am. Eep. 41. 

In personal injury cases, see infra. 

II, B, 2 b, (V), (A), (2). 

In ejection cases, see infra, II, B. 
2, c, (IV), (B). ' ' . . 

17. See the following. Ala. — ^Bir- 
mingham Ey. & E. Co. V. Mason, 137 
Ala. 342, 34 So. 207. Fla.— Barnwell 
V. Seaboard A. L. Ey., 74 So. 497. 111. 
Chicago Union T. Co. v. O'Brien, 117 

III. App. 183. Mo.— Nolan v. Metro- 
politan S. E. Co., 250 Mo. 602, 614, 
157 S. W. 637. Wash.— Boyle v. Great 
Northern Ey. Co., 13 Wash. 383, 43 
Pac. 344. ' 

[a] Sufiicient Averments. — ( 1 ) 
That plaintiff was rightfully on de- 
fendant's premises at or near a sta- 
tion where he had gone for the pur- 
pose of entraining (Louisville & N. E. 
Co. V. Glascow, 179 Ala, 251, 60 So. 
103); (2) that plaintiff took passage 
upon a car in one of the defendant's 
trains and was admitted in one of de- 



Pa^&MgeRS 



m 



relationship, and showing either an express contract of carriage,^* or 
circumstances from which such a contract may be implied in law,^* 
must be alleged; an allegation that a person is a passenger is a mere 
conclusion -of law,^" as is an allegation that the plaintiff was lawfully 
in a certain car.^^ The plaintiff need not allege the purchase of a 
ticket or payment of fare,^^ or show whether he has a ticket,^' al- 
though he may and often does do so.^* The relationship of carrier 
and passenger may be shown without setting up definitely the termini 
of the journey.^" A person boarding a car must allege an attempt 
to do so at a proper time and place,"' or show that he was invited, in 



fendant's said cars to bet carried from 
the point of entry to the point of des- 
tination. Ohio & M. Ey. Co. v. Crou- 
cher, 132 Ind. 275, 31 N. E. 941; Indi- 
ana Union Tract. Co. v. McKinney, 39 
Ind. App. 86, 78 N. E. 203. To same 
efEeet, see: Ala. — ^Birmingham Ry. & 
Elee. Co. v. Mason, 137 Ala. 342, 34 So. 
207. la. — Warfield v. Hepburn, 62 
Ela. 409, 57 So. 618. Dl.— Walsh v. 
Cullen, 235 111. 91, 85 N. E. 223, 18 L. 
E. A. (N. S.) 911; Steiskal v. Marshall 
Field & Co., 142 111. App. 154, passen- 
ger on elevator. But (3) an averment 
that the plaintiff "was on" the de- 
fendant's street ear does not show a 
relation of carrier and passenger. 
Breese v. Trenton Horse E. Co., 52 N. 
J. L. 250, 19 Atl. 204. 

[b] Alleging undertaking to carry 
for hire is sufficient. Eoberts v. John- 
son, 58 N. Y. 613. 

[e] That the plaintiff boarded the 
defendant's car (1) with the Inten- 
tion of becoming a passenger is not 
equivalent to an allegation that the 
plaintiff did become a passenger. Earn- 
ing V. Metropolitan St. Ey. Co., 157 
Mo. 477j 505, 57 S. W. 268. (2) But it 
is sufficient on appeal. Nolan v. Met- 
ropolitan S. E. Co., 250 Mo. 602, 614, 
157 S. W. 637. 

[d] If a passenger is on a car by 
invitation, he must show that the per- 
son inviting him to board the car was 
acting within the scope of his em- 
ployment. Thompson v. Nashville, C. 
& St. L. Ey., 160 Ala. 590, 49 So. 340. 
See Lammert v. Chicago & A. E. Co., 9 
111. App. 388. 

[e] One riding on a pass need not 
allege that he is a person entitled to a 
pass. Louisville & N. E. Co. v. Daw- 
son, 11 Ala. App. 621, 66 So. 905. 

18. North Birmingham ■ Ey. Co. v. 
Liddicoat, 99 Ala. 545, 13 So. 18. 

19. North Birmingham Ry. Co. v. 
Liddicoat, 99 Ala. 545, 13 So. 18; Ev- 
ansville & C. E. Co. v. Duncan, 28 Ind. 



441, 92 Am. Dec. 322, nature of con- 
tract need not be .averred. 

20. See 5 Standard Peoc. 219. 

[a] But an allegation that one 
ejected is a passenger sufficiently nega- 
tives any suggestion that he is a tres- 
passer and is sufficient. Ark. — St. 
Louis & S. F. E. Co. v. Coy, 113 Ark. 
265, 168 S. W. 1106. Fla.— Seaboard 
Air Line E. Co. v. Scarborough, 52 Fla. 
425, 42 So. 706. Ga.— Macon, D. & 
S. E. Co. V. Moore, 125 Ga. 810, 54 S. 
E. 700. 

21. See 5 Standard Peoc. 219. 

22. U. S.— Chicago, E. I. & P. E. 
Co. V. Lee, 92 Fed. 318, 34 C. C. A. 
365. lU.— Cleveland, C. C. & St. L. E. 
Co. V. Scott, 111 111. App. 234. Mo. 
Lemon v. Chanslor, 68 Mo. 340, 30 Am. 
Eep. 799. 

But see Powell v. East Tennessee, V. 
& G. E. Co. (Miss.), 8 So. 738, where 
plaintiff wag passenger on a freight 
train. 

23. Seaboard Air Line E. Co. v. 
Scarborough, 52 Fla. 425, 432, 42 So. 
706. 

24. Southern E. Co. v. Melton, 158 
Ala. 404, 47 So. 1008; Pittsburgh, C. C. 
& St. L. E. Co. V. Haislup, 39 Ind. App. 
394, 79 N. B. 1035. 

[a] By, special objection, he may 
be required to state where he pur- 
chased his ticket. Eiley v. Wrights- 
ville & T. E. Co., 133 Ga. 413, 65 8. E. 
890, 24 L. E. A. (N. S.) 379, 18 Ann. 
Cas. 208 (wherein plaintiSf purchased 
a ticket over several connecting roads), 
Charleston & W. C. E. Co. v. Boyd, 5 
Ga. App. 137, 62 S. E. 714. 

25. Wabesh W. Ey. v. Friedman, 
146 111. 583, 30 N. E. 353, 34 N. E. 
1111, but if set forth, they must be 
truly stated. 

Effect of variance where termini set 
up, see infra, II, A, 5. 

26. North Birmingham E. Co. D. 
Liddicoat, 99 Ala. 545, 13 So. 18. 

vai. XXI 



120 



PASSENGERS 



the legal sense, to board the ear.^^ 

If plaintiff was a passenger on a freight train, he must show the 
authority, express or implied, of the employes in charge thereof to 
carry passengers,^' an express contract to be carried on such train,^' 
or that by established usage or by rules or regulations, passengers are 
allowed on such trains.'" 

That the defendant is a common carrier need not be alleged if the de- 
fendant is a railroad company.^^ 

c. Alleging Contract. — Where the action against a carrier of pas- 
sengers is based on contract, the contract being the gravamen of the 
suit must be alleged;'* but if the action is based on tort, the contract 
is pleaded merely as an inducement and the breach of duty is solely 
counted on.'' 

4. Plea or Answer. — The general rules relating to pleas and an- 
swers obtain in actions against carriers of passengers.'* 



Allegations In "sudden jerk" cases, 
see infra, II, B, 2, b, (V), (B), (4). 

27. North Birmingham R. Co. v. 
Liddieoat, 99 Ala. 545, 13 So. 18; Hess 
V. Public Service R. Co., 84' N. J. L. 
329, 86 Atl. 951. 

[a] Allegations showing an im- 
plied invitation to board a car by re- 
ducing its speed and stating that plain- 
tiff was "in the act of getting upon 
and alighting on said car "shows that 
plaintiff is a passenger. Chicago Union 
T. Co. V. O'Brien, 117 111. App. 183. 
See also Citizens' St. R. Co. v. Jolly, 
161 Ind. 80, 88, 67 N. E. 935; Hess v. 
Public Service B. Co., 84 N. J. L. 329, 
86 Atl. 951 ; Kennedy v. North Jersey 
St. B. Co., 72 N. J. L. 19, 60 Atl. 40. 

28. Whitehead v. St. Louis, I. M. 
& S. By. Co., 22 Mo. App. 60. 

29. International & G. N. R. Co. v. 
Downing, 16 Tex. Civ. App. 643, 41 
S. W. 190, where plaintiff rode by vir- 
tue of live stock contract. 

30. Smith v. Louisville, E. & St. 
L. B. Co., 124 Ind. 394, 24 N. E. 753. 

31. U. S.— Atlantic & P. E. Co. v. 
Laird, 58 Fed. 760, 7 C. C. A. 489. Ala. 
Birmingham By., L. & P. Co. v. Ad- 
ams, 146 Ala. 267, 40 So. 385, 119 Am. 
St. Bep. 27. See Birmingham By., L. 
& P. Co. V. Selhorst, 165 Ala. 475, 51 So. 
568. Oonn — Fuller v. Naugatuck B. 
Co., 21 Conn. 557. 

Judicial notice that railway com- 
pany is a common carrier, see 7 Ency. 
01' Ev. 941. 

32. See infra, II, B, 1. 

Variance between contract as al- 
leged and proved, see infra, II, A, 5. 

33. Ga.— King v. Southern R. Co., 
128 Ga. 285, 57 S. E. 507. 111.— Prink 

Vol. XXI 



V. Potter, 17 111. 406. Ind.— Pittsburgh, 
C. C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Higgs, 165 
Ind. 694, 76 N. E. 299, 4 L. R. A. (N. 
S.) 1081. Neb.— Fremont, E. & M. V. 
R. Co. V. Hagblad, 72 Neb. 773, 101' 
N. W. 1033, 106 N. W. 1041, 4 L. B. 
A. (N. S.) 254. S. C— Pickens v. 
South Carolina B. & G. B. Co., 54 S. 
C, 498, 502, 32 S. E. 567; Hammond 
V. North Eastern R. Co., 6 S. C. 130, 
24 Am. Rep. 467. 

34. See infra this note, and the ti- 
tles "Answers;" "Denials;" "Pleas." 

[a] Defendant must plead af&rma- 
tively (1) the defense that the plain- 
tiff has forfeited his right to be car- 
ried as a passenger. Ohio & M. Ry. 
Co. V. Croucher, 132 Ind. 275, 31 N. E. . 
941; Indiana Union Tract. Co. v. Mc- 
Kinney, 39 Ind. App. 86, 78 N. E. 203. 
(2) And if he' relies on rules or regu- 
lations he must in general specially 
plead them (Birmingham R., L. & P. 
Co. V. Yielding, 155 Ala. 359, 46 So. 
747; Birmingham B. L. & P. Co. v. 
McDonough, 153 Ala. 122, 44 So. 960, 
127 Am. St. Bep. 18, 13 L. R. A. [N. 
S.] 445; Lane v. Choctaw, O. & G. R. 
E. Co., 19 Okla. 324, 91 Pac. 883), (3) 
negativing their disuse or waiver 
(Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Bizzell, 131 
Ala. 429, 30 So. 777), (4) and showing 
plaintiff's knowledge thereof. Arm- 
strong V. Montgomery St. By. Co., 123 
Ala. 233, 247, 26 So. 349; Birmingham 
By., L. & P. Co. V. Smith, 14 Ala. App. 
264, 69 So. 910, rule as to place and 
time of transfer must be presented. 

[b] Exception Where Rule Is Proved 
Under Denial. — Logan v. Hannibal & 
St. J. E. Co., 77 Mo. 663. 

Form of answer that defendant is 



PAS8ENGEBS 



121 



5. Issues, Proof, and Variance.'" — While it has been held that 
the allegation of the relationship of carrier and passenger is a mate- 
rial allegation which must be proved as alleged,^' it has also been 
held that the general issue does not put in issue an allegation that 
the plaintiff is a passenger.^' A recovery on the theory that plaintiff 
is a trespasser cannot be had under an allegation that he is a passen- 
ger.'* A variation between the pleadings and proof as to the termini 
of the journey,'* or as to the consideration of the contract,*" has been 
held fatal. The plaintiff may prove the disregard of rules set up in 
the answer without additional pleading on his part.*^ 

6. Questions of Law and Fact.*^ — The construction of contracts 
of transportation is a matter of law for the court,*' as i^ the question 
of what facts will create the relation of carrier and passenger.** 
But the existence of the relationship of carrier and passenger is a 
mixed question of fact and law.** Generally, the reasonableness of 



not a common canler, see 9 Standard 
Peoc. 69. 

35. As to variance, see generally 
the title "Variance and Failure of 
Proof." 

36. Birmingliam Ey., L. & P. Co. 
V. McCurdy, 172 Ala. 488, 55 So. 616 
(althougli there is no suggestion dur- 
ing the trial of a denial of the fact) ; 
Birmingham Ey., L. & P. Co. c. Saw- 
yer, 156 Ala. 199, 47 So. 67, 19 L. 
E. A. (N. S.) 717. 

37. Atlantic Coast Line E. Co. v. 
Crosby, 53 Fla. 400, 434, 43 So. 318. 

38. Fitzgibbon v. Chicago & N. W. 
E. Co., 108 Iowa 614, 79 N. W. 477. 

[a] Where Gross Negligence Is 
Charged. — Way v. Chicago, E. I. & P. 
E. Co., 73 Iowa 468, 35 N. W. 525. 

39. Ala. — Southern E. Co. v. Lol- 
lar, 135 Ala. 375, 33 So. 32, holding 
there was no variance. HI. — Wabash 
W. Ey. V. Friedman, 146 111. 583, 590, 
30 N. E. 353, 34 N. E. 1111. Mass. 
Harris v. Eayner, 8 Pick. 541. 

[a] Where different names for same 
place there is no variance. Illinois 
Cent. E. Co. v. Sutton, 53 HI. 397. 

40. Harris v. Rayner, 8 Pick. 
(Mass.) 541. 

41. Missouri, K. & T. E. Co. v. 
Herring, 61 Tex. Civ. App. 543, 127 
S. W. 1155, 130 S. W. 1039. 

42. See generally the title "Prov- 
ince of Judge and Jury." 

43. Simms v. Pullman S. Car Co., 22 
Fed. Cas. No. 12,869a. See generally 
11 Standard Peoc. 1057. 

44. Chicago & E. I. E. E. Co. v. 
Jennings, 190 111. 478, 60 N. B. 818, 
54 L. R. A. 827; O'Donnell v. Chicago 
ft N. W. Ey. Co., 106 111. App. 287. 



45. U. S. — Chesapeake & O. E. Co. 
V. King, 99 Fed. 251, 40 C. C. A. 
432, 49 L. E. A. 102. Ala.— Widener 
V. Alabama G. S. E. Co., 194 Ala. 115, 
69 So. 558; Louisville & N. E. Co. v. 
Glascow, 179 Ala. 251, 60 So. 103. 
Ark.— -St. Louis & S. F. E. Co. v. Coy, 
113 Ark. 265, 168 S. W. 1106. 111. 
Chicago U, T. Co. v. Rosenthal, 217 
111. 458, 75 N. E. 578; Chicago T. T. 
E. Co. V. Gruss, 200 III. 195, 65 N. E. 
693. Ind.— Citizens' St. E. Co, v. Jolly, 
161 Ind. 80, 67 N. E. 935. Mass. 
Hogner v. Boston Elevated E. Co., 
198 Mass. 260, 84 N. E. 464, 15 L. R. 
A. (N. S.) 960. Mo.— Anderson v. 
Missouri Pae. E. Co., 196 Mo. 442, 93 
S. W. 394, 113 Am. St. Rep. 748; 
Lindsay v. St. Louis & H. R. Co. (Mo. 
App.), 178 S. W. 276. Neb.— Fremont, 
E. & M. v. R. Co. V. Root, 49 Neb. 
900, 69 N. W. 397. , N. J.— Atlantic 
City R. Co. V. Kiefer, 75 N. J. L. 54, 
66 Atl. 930. Pa. — Goehring v. Beaver 
Val. Tract. Co., 222 Pa. 600, 72 Atl. 
259. S. C. — Martin v. Southern Ry. 
Co., 51 S. C. 150, 28 S. E. 303. Tex. 
Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. v. Huff, 98 
Tex. 110, 81 S. W. 525; Missouri, K. 
& T. R. Co. V. Brown (Tex. Civ. 
App.), 156 S. W. 519. Wash.— Dunn 
V. Puget Sound T., L. & P. Co., 89 
Wash. 36, 153 Pae. 1059. 

[a] Commencement and Termina- 
tion of Relation. — (1) Whether plain- 
tiff went to station a reasonable time 
before train time (Northern P. R. Co. 
V. Marinovich, 189 Fed. 328, 111 C. 
C. A. 60), and (2) whether passenger 
failed to leave carrier's premises with- 
in a reasonable time (Lavne v. Ches- 
apeake & O. R. Co., 68 W. Va. 213, 

Tol. XXI 



1^2 



PASSBM^RS 



the rules and regulations of the carrier is a question of law for the 
court.*' But it is a question of fact whether the enforcement of a 
rule in a particular instance is reasonable.*^ 

7. Costs.** — Special statutes exist relating to costs in actions 
against carriers of passengers.*' 

B. Pabticiilab Actions. — 1. Actions Ex Contractu.'"' — a. Jur- 
isdiction and Venue. — The rules of jurisdiction and venue as to, 
actions upon contracts generally apply to an action against a passenger 
founded on contract.''^ 

b. Parties.^" — ■ Passengers may sue in their own names for breach 
of contract of transportation.^^ 



69 S. E. 700, 31 L. E. A. [N. S.] 
414) are questions for the jury, (3) 
aa well as the question whether a pas- 
senger by his conduct forfeits his 
rights as such. la. — Eamm v. Min- 
neapolis & St. L. Ey. Co., 94 Iowa 
296, 62 N. W. 751. Neb.— Fremont, 
B. & M. V. E. Co. V. Eoot, 49 Neb. 
900, 69 N". W. 397. Va.— Southern 
E. Co. V. Grubbs, 115 Va.,876, 80 S. E. 
749. 

46. See the following: Ala. — Birm- 
ingham E., L, & P. Co. V. McDonough, 
153 Ala. 122, 44 So. 960, 127 Am. 
St. Eep. 18, 13 L. E. A. (N. S.) 445; 
Pullman Car Co. v. Krauss, 145 Ala. 
395, 40 So. 398; Bowie v. Birmingham 
Ey. & Elec. Co., 125 Ala. 397, 27 So. 
1016, 82 Am. St. Eep. 247, 50 L. E. 
A. 632. Ark. — Eailway Co. v. Hardy, 
55 Ark. 134, 17 S. W. 711, regulation 
as to extra charge for chair car. Fla. 
South Florida E. Co. v. Ehoads, 25 Pla. 
40, 5 So. 633, 23 Am. St. Eep. 506, 3 
L. E. A. 733. Mont.— Doherty v. 
Northern Pac. E. Co., 43 Mont. 294, 
115 Pac. 401, 36 L. E. A. (N. S.) 
1139. N. J.— Daniel v. North Jersey 
St. Ey. Co., 64 N. J. K 603, 46 Atl. 
625. N. v.- Hibbard v. New York & 
E. E. Co., 15 N. Y. 455; Hanley v. 
Brooklyn Heights E. Co., 110 App. 
Div. 429, 96 N. Y. Supp. 249; Man- 
nion V. International E. Co., 121 N. Y. 
Supp. 263. Pa..— Pittsburgh, C. & St. 
L. E. Co. V. Lyon, 123 Pa. 140, 16 
Atl. 607, 10 Am. St. Eep. 517, 2 L. E. 
A. 489. Tenn, — Louisville, N. & G. S. 
E. Co. V. Fleming, 14 Lea 128, 145. 
Wla. — Goldberg v. Ahnapee & W. E. 
Co., 105 Wis. 1, 80 N. W. 920, 76 Am. 
St. Eep. 899, 47 L. E. A. 221. 

Contra, Day v. Owen, 5 Mich. 520, 
72 Am. Dec. 62 (the reasonableness 
of a rule or regulation is a mixed 
question of law and fact to be found 
by the jury under proper instruc- 

VoL XXI 



, tions) ; Compton v. Van Volkenburgh, 
34 N. J. L. 134. 

47. Montgomery v. Buffalo Ey. Co., 
165 N. Y. 139, 58 N. E. 770; Pittsburgh, 
C. & St. L. E. Co. V. Lyon, 123 Pa. 
140, 16 Atl. 607, 10 Am. St. Eep. 517, 
2 L. E. A. 489. 

48. See generally the title "Costs." 

49. See generally the statutes, and 
St. Louis & S. F. E. Co. v. Neal, 66 
Ark. 543, 51 S. W. 1060, under stat- 
ute requiring freight trains to carry 

4)assengers from and to stations. 

[a] For the violation of any law 
regulating transportation of passengers 
a successful plaintiff may recover a 
reasonable attorney's fee to be taxed 
as costs in Arkansas. St. Louis S. W. 
E. Co. V. Knight, 81 Ark. 429, 99 S. W. 
684; Kansas City S. Ey. Co. v Marx, 
72 Ark. 357, 80 S. W. 579. 

50. See generally the title "Implied 
and Express Agreements." 

51. See Hines v. Dry Dock, E. B. 
& B. E. Co., 75 App. Div. 391, 78 
N. Y. Supp. 170, and generally the 
titles " JuiSsdiction; " "Venue." 

[a] Justice's court has exclusive 
jurisdiction if the consideration of 
the ticket, is within the jurisdictional 
limits of such court. Hannah v. Eieh- 
mond & D. E. Co., 87 N. C. 351. 
Amount in controversy or value of 
property as test of jurisdiction gen- 
erally, see 17 Standard Peoc. 831 et 
seq. ' 

[b] Venue.— (1) County where con- 
tract IS made (Southern E. Co. v. Cas- 
sell, 122 Ky. 317, 92 S. W. 281), or 
(2) county in which the final destina- 
tion named in his ticket is located 
(Sutton V. Southern Ey. Co., 101 Ga 
776, 29 8. E. 53) is a proper one for 
commencement of suit. 

52. See generally the title "Par- 
ties." 

53. Weed V. Saratoga & S. E. Co., 



PASSENG^S 



123 



c. Declaration or Complaint. — In actions ex contractu against 
carriers of passengers the plaintiff, in accordance with the general 
rules in such actions,^* must set out the promise to carry the pur- 
chaser between the points named in the ticbet,°° in consideration of 
the sum paid,"^ a faithful performance by him, or a readiness and 
willingness to do so,"' and a breach of the contract.^^ It is not neces- 
sary to set out a copy of the ticket."' Allegations of tortious acts 
of the carrier's servants may be treated as surplusage.^" 

d. Answer or Plea. — The general rules relating to answers and 
pleas in contract cases obtain in actions for breach of contract of 
carriage.®^ 

e. Issues, Proof and Variance. — If the railroad company does not 
plead non est factum, the plaintiff need not prove execution and is- 
suance of the ticket by the defendant.^^ But a very slight variance 
in the proof of the contract to transport from that described in the 
petition has been held fatal.*' 

2. Actions Ex Delicto. — a. Actions Arising Out of Breach of 
Contract or Duty To Transport. — (I.)' Generally.— (A.) Foe Refusal To 
Caeey.8* — If a common carrier of passengers wrongfully refuses to 
carry one properly presenting himself for transportation, he may 
bring an action on the case j"" or under proper circumstances, ask in- 
junctive relief.*® If he had a ticket, he may sue upon contract or in 



19 Wend. (N. Y.) 534 (where passen- 
ger is an agent); Jenkins v. Chesa- 
peake & O. E. Co., 61 W. Va. 597, 57 
S. E. 48, 49 L. E. A. (N. S.) 1166. 

Bight of postal clerks to sue as for 
breach of contract, see supra, II, A, 
1, a. 

54. See 11 Standaed Peoc. 981. 

55. Frink V. Potter, 17 111. 406; 
PennBylvania E. Co. v. Peoples, 31 Ohio 
St. 537. 

[a] Contract Must Be Correctly 
Stated.— Cleveland, C. C. & St. L. E. 
Co. V. Scott, 111 111. App. 234. 

[b] If the ticket is sold by an- 
other company, there must be an al- 
legation that the issuing company is 
a joint contractor or has authority 
to bind defendant by issuing tickets. 
Matthews v. Charleston & S. Ev. Co., 
38 S. C. 429, 17 S. E. 225, 37 Am. 
St. Eep. 773. 

56. Fremont, E. & M. V. E. Co. 
V. Hagblad, 72 Neb. 773, 101 N. W. 
1033, 106 N. W. 1041, 4 L. E. A. (N. 
S.) 254; Pennsylvania E. Co. v. Peo- 
ples, 31 Ohio St. 537. 

57. Norfolk & W. R. Co. v. Wysor, 
82 Va. 250. 

58. Fremont, B. & M. V. E. Co. 
V. Hagblad, 72 Neb. 773, 101 N. W. 
1033, 106 N. W. 1041, 4 L E. A. 



(N. S.) 254; Pennsylvania E. Co. e. 
Peoples, 31 Ohio St. 537. 

59. Evansville & E. E. Co. v. Kyte, 
6 Ind. App. 52, 32 N. E. 1134. 

60. Chase v. Atchison, T. & S. F. 
E. Co., 70 Kan. 546, 79 Pac. 153. 

61. See Taxicab Co. v. Grant, 3 
Ala. App. 393, 57 So; 141; and gen- 
erally the titles "Answers;" "De- 
nials;" "Implied and Express Agree- 
ments;" "Pleas." 

62. International & G. N. E. Co. 
V. Ing, 29 Tex. Civ. App. 398, 68 S. W. 
722. 

63. Jenkins V. Chesapeake & O. E. 
Co., 61 W. Va. 597, 57 S. E. 48, 49 
L. E. A. (N. S.) 1166, citing Kline v. 
McLain, 33 W. Va. 32, 10 S. E. 11, 
5 L. R. A. 400; Baltimore & O. E. 
Co. V. Eathbone, 1 W. Va. 87, 88 Am. 
Deo. 664. 

As to variance generally, see 11 
StJandard Peoc. 1036, and ' the title 
"Variance and Failure of Proof." 

64. Actions for wrongful ejection, 
sea infra, II, B, 2, c. 

65. Ballard v. Cincinnati E. Co., 15 
Ky. L. Eep. 703; Wallen v. MeHenry, 
3 Humph. (Tenn.) 245, public ferry. 
See generally the title "Case (The 
Action of Trespass On The)." 

66. Hogan v. Nashville Interurban 
E. Co., 131 Tenn. 244, 174 S. W. 1118, 

Vol. XXI 



124 



PASSENGERS 



tort at his election.*' An action to recover a statutory penalty for 
refusal to carry should be in debt.** 

(B.) Where Passenger Presents Improper Ticket or Transfer. 
A passenger ejected because given an improper ticket or transfer 
may sue either for a breach of the contract,*^ or in tort.'" If the 
ticket is regarded as conclusive as between conductor and passenger, 
and no unnecessary force is used in the ejection, the action cannot 
be based on wrongful ejection,'^ especially where the invalidity of 
the ticket is apparent.'* If able to do so, the plaintiff should pay 



Ann. Cas. 1916C, 1162, L. E. A. 1915E, 
788. 

67. Baltimore & O. E. Co. v. Carr, 
- 71 Md. 135, 17 Atl. 1052; Pureell v. 

Richmond & D. E. Co., 108 N. C. 414, 
12 S. E. 954, 12 L. R. A. 113. 

68. Wallen v. MeHenry, 3 Humph. 
(Tenn.) 245, not for trespass and dam- 
ages. See generally the titles "Debt;" 
"Penalties, Forfeitures and Fines." 

69. U. S. — ^Pouilin v. Canadian Pac. 
R. Co., 47 Fed. 8*58. Ala. — l&ontgomery 
Traction Co. v. Fitzpatriek, 149 Ala. 
511, 43 So. 136, 9 Lu R. A. (N. S.) 
851; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Hine, 
121 Ala. 234, 25 So. 857. Ark.— Little 
Rook E. & Elee. Co. v. G-oerner, 80 
Ark. 158, 95 S. W. 1007, 7_L. R. A. 
(N. S.) 97. Ga. — ^Head v. Gfeorgia Pac. 
Ry. Co., 79 Ga. 358, 7 S. E. 217, 11 
Am. St. Eep. 434. 111. — Chicago, B. 
& Q. E. Co. V. Griffin, 68 111. 499. 
Kan. — Chase v. Atchison, T. & S. F. 
E. Co., 70 Kan. 546, 79 Pae. 153; 
Union Pac. E. Co. v. Shook, 3 Kan. 
App. 710, 44 Pae. 685. Ky.— South- 
ern E. Co. V. Hawkins, 121 Ky. 415, 
89 S. W. 258; Lexington & E. Ey. Co. 
V. Lyons, 104 Ky. 23, 46 S. W. 209, 
holding action to be ex contractu al- 
though the ejection is characterized 
as wrongful and malicious. Mich. 
Van Dusan v. Grand Trunk Ey. Co., 
97 Mich. 439, 56 N. W. 848, 37 Am. 
St. Eep. 354;. Frederick v. Marquette, 
H. & O. E. Co., 37 Mich. 342, 26 Am. 
B«p. 531, followed in Brown i;. Eapid 
E. Co., 134 Mich. 591, 96 N. W. 925. 
But see Hufford v. Grand Eapids & 
I. E. Co., 64 Mich. 631, 31 N. W. 
544, 8 Am. St. Eep. 859, 53 Mich. 118, 
18 N. W. 580, 8 Am. Neg. Cas. 430. 
W. Va.— McKay v. Ohio Eiver Ey. 
Co., 34 W. Va. 65, 11 S. E. 737, 26 
Am. St Rep. 913, 9 L. E. A. 132, 
8 Am. Neg. Cas. 662. 

Actions for ejection generally, see 
imfra, II, B, 2, c. 

70. U. S. — Pouilin v. Canadian Pac. 
E. Co., 47 Fed. 858. Ala.— Louisville 
Vol. XXI 



& N. E. Co. V. Hine, 121 Ala. 234, 
25 So. 857. Ga. — Head v. Georgia Pac. 
Ey. Co., 79 Ga. 358, 7 S. E. 217, 11 
Am. St. Eep. 434. Kan. — ^Union Pae. 
R. Co. V. Shook, 3 Kan. App. 710, 44 
Pac. 685. 

71. Ala. — Montgomery Traction Co. 
V. Fitzpatriek, 149 Ala. 511, 43 So. 
136, 9 L. E. A. (N. S.) 851. Compare 
Pullman Co. v. Eiley, 5 Ala. App. 561, 
59 So. 761. Ky. — Spink v. Louisville 
& N. E. Co., 21 Ky. L. Eep. 778, 52 
S. W. 1067. Md.— Western M. E. Co. 
V. Schaun, 97 Md. 563, 55 Atl. 701; 
Western M. E. Co. v. Stocksdale, 83 
Md. 245, 34 Atl. 880. N. Y.— Town- 
send V. 2Srew York Cent. & H. E. R. 
Co., 56 N. Y. 295, 15 Am. Rep. 419. 
Ohio.— Shelton v. Lake Shore & M. S. 
R. Co., 29 Ohio St. 214. Va.— Vir- 
ginia & S. W. R. Co. V. Hill, 105 
Va. 729, 739, 54 S. E. 872, 6 L. E. 
A. (N. S.) 899. W. Va.— McKay v. 
Ohio Eiver Ey. Co., 34 W. Va. 65, 
11 S. E. 737, 26 Am. St. Eep. 913, 
9 L. E. A. 132, 8 Am. Neg. Cas. 662. 
Wis. — ^Yorton v. Milwaukee, L S. & 
W. Ey. Co., 62 Wis. 367, 21 N. W. 
516, 23 N. W. 401, 54 Wis. 234, 11 
N. W. 482, 41 Am. Rep. 23, 8 Am. 
Neg. Cas. 678. 

As to actionsi for ejection, see infra. 
II, B, 2, 0. 

72. Western M. R. Co. v. Stocks- 
dale, 83 Md. 245, 34 Atl. 880; Mur- 
dock V. Boston & A. E. Co., 137 Mass. 
293, 50 Am. Eep. 307; Bradshaw v. 
South Boston E. Co., 135 Mass. 407, 
46 Am. Eep. 481. 

[a] If a passenger fails to see that 
he is giTen a proper ticket, he must 
sue on the contract. Bradshaw v. 
South Boston E. Co., 135 Mass. 407, 
46 Am. Eep. 481. 

[b] If the ticket is not plainly In- 
sufacient and the ticket agent assures 
him the ticket is good, an action in 
tort for wrongful expulsion lies. Mur- 

oSo'^J'.- ?°^*°° * ■*■• ^- ^°-> 137 Mass. 
293, 50 Am. Eep. 307. 



PA88ENGEBS 



125 



the fare demanded and seek recovery as for breach of contract," and 
it has been held this is his only remedy,'* although many courts 
allow an action for negligence in giving a wrong ticket, especially 
where the ticket is apparently valid J° Of course, if undue force is 
used, an action for wrongful ejection lies/" If the conductor is bound 
to accept an explanation from the passenger, an action for damages 
for wrongful expulsion lies/' 

(C.) Wheeb Passenger Is Given Incorkect iNroRMATiON as to Trains. 
As in cases where the ticket is conclusive as between conductor and 



73. U. S. — ^Pouilin v. Canadian Pae. 
R. Co., 47 Fed. 858. Ky.— Spink v. 
Louisville & N. E. Co., 21 Ky. L. 
Rep. 778, 52 S. W. 1067. Md.— West- 
ern M. E. Co. V. Schaun, 97 Md. 563, 
55 Atl. 701; Western M. R. Co. v. 
Stocksdale, 83 Md. 245, 34 Atl. 880; 
Philadelphia, W. & B. R. Co. v. Rice, 
64 Md. 63, 21 Atl. 97. Vt.— Holden 
V. Rutland R. Co., 72 Vt. 156, 47 Atl. 
403, 82 Am. St- Rep. 926. W. Va. 
McKay v. Ohio River Ry. Co., 34 W. 
Va. 65, 11 S. E. 737, 26 Am. St. 
Rep. 913, 9 L. R. A. 132, 8 Am. Neg. 
Cas. 662. 

74. U. S.— See Northern Pac. R. Co. 
V. Pauson, 70 Fed. 585, 17 C. C. A. 
287, 30 L. R. A. 730, which so states 
the rule although it follows the con- 
trary rule that the conductor is bound 
to accept the passenger's explanation. 
Ark.— Little Rock R. & Elec. Co. v. 
Goerner, 80 Ark. 158, 95 S. W. 1007, 
7 L. R. A. (N. S.) 97. Compare Hot 
Springs R. Co. v. Deloney, 65 Ark. 177, 
45 S. W. 351, 67 Am. St. Rep. 913, 
4 Am. Neg. Rep. 1. Mass. — ^Bradshaw 
V. South Boston R. Co., 135 Mass. 
407, 46 Am. Rep. 481, where the in- 
validity is apparent. Va. — Virginia 
& S. W. R. Co. V. Hill, 105 Va. 729, 
739, 54 S. E. 872, 6 L. R. A. (N. S.) 
899. 

75. Ala. — Montgomery Traction Co. 
V. Fitzpatrick, 149 Ala. 511, 43 So. 
136, 9 L. R. A. (N. S.) 851. Ind. 
Seott V. Cleveland, C, C. & St. L. 
Ry. Co., 144 Ind. 125, 43 N. E. 133, 
32 L. R. A. 154. Md.— -Philadelphia, 
W. & B. R. Co. V. Rice, 64 Md. 63, 
21 Atl. 97, an action will lie against 
the company for a breach of contract, 
or for negligence of the conductor. 
N. Y. — Townsend v. New York Cent. 
& H. R. R. Co., 56 N. Y. 295, 15 Am. 
Rep. 419, for the wrongful act of the 
conductor in taking plaintiff's ticket 
without giving him a transfer he has 
a remedy against the company. Ohio. 
Shelton v. Lake Shore & M. S. R. Co., 



29 Ohio St. 214. Vt.— Holden v. Rut- 
land R. Co., 72 Vt. 156, 47 Atl. 403, 
82 Am. St. Rep. 926. W. Va.— Mc- 
Kay V. Ohio River Ry. Co., 34 W. 
Va. 65, 11 S. E. 737, 26 Am. St. Rep. 
913, 9 L. R. A. 132, 8 Am. Neg. Cas. 
662, plaintiff "must look to the breach 
of contract or the act of receiving 
money for the round trip and giving a 
wrong ticket." Wis. — Yorton v. Mil- 
waukee, L. S. & W. R. Co., 62 "Wis. 

367, 21 N. W. 516, 23 N. W. 401, 54 
Wis. 234, 11 N. W. 482, 41 Am. Rep. 
23, 8 Am. Neg. Gas. 678, plaintiff 
may leave the train and hold the 
company liable for the fault or mis- 
take of the first conductor. 

76. See infra, II, B, 2, c. 

77. XT. S.— New York, Lake Erie & 
W. R. Co. V. Winters' Admr., 143 V. S. 
60, 12 Sup. Ct. 356, 36 L. ed. 71; 
Northern P. R. Co. v. Pauson, 70 Fed. 
585, 17 C. C. A. 287, 30 L. R. A. 
730. See also Seofield v. Pennsvlvania 
Co., 112 Fed. 855, 50 C. C. A. 553, 56 
L. R. A. 224, distingmsMng Pouilin 
V. Canadian Pac. R. Co., 52 Fed. 197, 
3 C. C. A. 23, 17 L. R. A. 800. Ga. 
Georgia R. Co. v. Olds, 77 Ga. 673. 
See City & S. R. Co. v. Brausi, 70 Ga. 

368, where plaintiff was told that he 
needed no transfer. Ind. — ^Pennsyl- 
vania Co. ■». Bray, 125 Ind. 229, 25 
N. B. 439; Toledo W. & W. R. Co. 
V. McDonough, 53 Ind. 289. la. — Ells- 
worth V. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co., 95 
Iowa 98, 63 N. W. 584, 29 L. R. A. 
173, 8 Am. Neg. Cas. 252. Minn. 
Krueger v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O. 
Ry. Co., 68 Minn. 445, 71 N. W. 683, 
64 Am. St. Rep. 487. Pa. — Laird v. 
Pittsburgh Tract. Co., 166 Pa. 4, 31 
Atl. 51, 8 Am. Neg. Cas. 617. Tenn. 
O'Rourke v. Street Ry. Co., 103 Tenn. 
124, 132, 52 S. W. 872, 76 Am. St. 
Rep. 639, 46 L. R. A. 614. Wash. 
Lawshe v. Tacoma Ry. & Power Co., 
29 Wash. 681, 70 Pac. 118, 59 L. E. 
A. 350. 

Vol XXI 



126 



PASSENGEBS 



passenger,'* an action arising out of incorrect information should not 
be based on a hresich. of duty to transport/^ but on the misdirection.*" 

(n.) Jurisdlctioa and Venue. — The general rules governing juris- 
diction and venue apply to this class of actions.*^ 

(III.) Parties. — The general rules as to parties apply to this class 
of actions.*^ 

(IV.) Declaration or Complaint. — (A.) Generally. — The declaration 
or complaint in actions for damages sustained by reason of the car- 
rier's breach of contract or his common law duty to transport must 
state a cause of action in accord with the general rules, relating to 
such pleadings.*^ 

(B.) For Refusal of Carelvge. — The complaint in a tort action for 
refusal to carry a passenger must show a duty** to carry the plaintiff 



As to actions for ejection, see infra, 
II, B, 2, c. 

78. See supra, II, B, 2, a, (I), (C). 

79. Louisville & N. E. Co. v. Max- 
well, 190 Ala. 47, 66 So. 669; Mar- 
sliall V. St. Louis, K. C. & N. Ey. Co., 
78 Mo. 610, where passenger was car- 
ried by station. 

80. Marshall v. St. Louis, K. C. & 
N. Ey. Co., 78 Mo. 610; Drew v. Wabash 
R. Co., 129 Mo. App. 459, 107 S. W. 
478. See also St. Louis & S. W. Ey. 
Co. V. White, 99 Tex. 359, 89 S. W. 
746, 122 Am. St. Eep. 631, 2 L. E. A. 
(N. S.) 110; International & G. N. E. 
Co. V. Kilgo (Tex. Civ. App.), 71 S. 
W. 556. 

81. See Gulf, C. & S. F. E. Co. v. 
Ward, 58 Tex. Civ. App. 210, 124 S. W. 
130 (where passenger is carried by 
station, the action may be brought in 
the county in which the injury oc- 
curred or in which the plaintiff re- 
sided "at the time of the injury"), 
and the titles "Jurisdiction;" 
"Venue." 

82. See infra, this note, and gen- 
erally the title "Parties." 

[a] A ticket agent in a union sta^ 
tion is the agent of the particular com- 
pany for whom he purports to act in 
issuing a ticket, and an action for 
his negligence must be brought against 
such company. Scott v. Cleveland, C, 
C. & St. L. Ey. Co., 144 Ind. 125, 43 
N. E. 133, 32 L. E. A. 154. 

[b] Dismissal of Joint Defendant. 
If the purchaser of a ticket over sev- 
eral lines sues all as joint contractors, 
and it turns out that the contract was 
made by a less number, the others 
may be dismissed. Bonsteel v. Van- 
derbilt, 21 Barb. (N. Y.) 26. 

Vol. XXI 



Actions by postal clerksi, see- supra, 
II, A, 1^ a. 

83. See infra, this note, and gen- 
erally the title "Declaration and 
Complaint." 

[a] For complaints in particular 
actions held sufficient, see the follow- 
ing; Ala. — Southern E. Co. v. Farqu- 
har, 192 Ala. 415, 68 So. 289 (fail- 
ure of conductor to inform passenger 
he is on wrong train); Birmingham 
Ey., L. & P. Co. V. Scisson, 186 Ala. 
70, 65 So. 332, refusal of conductor 
to issue transfer. MisSL— St. Clair v. 
Kansas City, M. & B. E. Co., 76 Miss. 
473, 24 So. 904, 71 Am. St. Eep. 534, 
declaration for damages for selling 
ticket over route knowing of quaran- 
tine regulations. S. C. — Kibler v. 
Southern E., 64 S. C. 242, 41 S. B. 
977. 

[b] Alleging Duty To Accept Tick- 
et.— Pittsburgh, C, C. & St. L. Ey. 
Co. V. Lightcap, 7 Ind. App. 249, 34 
N. E. 243. 

[c] ■ In alleging that he was pre- 
vented from concluding a business 
transaction, the plaintiff must state 
the name of the parties thereto. Town- 
send V. Texas & N. O E. Co. 40 
Tex. Civ. App. 71, 88 S. W. 302.' As 
to alleging damages generally, see 13 
Standard Peoc. 360, et seq. 

84. Birmingham By., L. & P. Co. 
V. Anderson, 3 Ala. App. 424, 57 So. 

J.Uu> 

[a] Duty to stop must be alleged. 
Battle V. Georgia Ey. & Elec. Co., 120 
Ga. 992, 994, 48- S. E. 337, 338. ' 

[b] Manner in which the plaintiff 
flagged the train need not be alleged. 
Southern E. Co. v. Wallis, 133 Ga 553, 
66 S. E. 370, 30 L. B. A. (N. S.) 
401. ^ ' 



PASSENGERS 



127 



as a passenger, an offer or readiness to pay the fare,"* and a breach 
of the duty to transport.*^ 

(C.) Fob Failure To Give Passenger Time To Board or Alight. — A duty 
of the carrier to stop the train or car at the place in question long 
enough to enable the plaintiff to board or alight,*' and a breach of 
that duty,®* must be shown, where the action is based on this theory. 

(D.) For Settingi Passbniqer Down AT Wrong Destination Where a 

party is set down at the wrong place, the complaint must allege a 
rule,*^ custom,^" or special agreement,^^ requiring the train to stop 
at plaintiff 's destination ; and a breach of such duty f" but the plain- 
tiff 's knowledge that the train was scheduled to stop,®' or the con- 
ductor's knowledge of his ignorance of a safe route to the station,®* 



85. Day v. Owen, 5 Mich. 520, 72 
Am. Dec. 62; St. Louis S. W. E. Co. 
V. Thomas (Tex. Civ. App.), 27 S. W. 
419. 

Similar allegations In cases of wrong- 
ful ejection, see infra, II, B, 2, c, 
(IV), (B), (1), (b). 

[a] The price of the ticket, the 
price of a substituted conveyance or 
special damages as in an action ex 
contractu need not be alleged. Pur- 
cell V. Richmond & D. E. Co., 108 N. 
C. 414, 12 S. E. 954, 12 L. B. A. 
113. 

86. Ga. — ^Brown v. Georgia, C. & N. 
E. Co., 119 Ga. 88, 46 S. E. 71. Ky. 
Dierig v. South Covington & C. S. E. 
Co., 24 Ky. L. Eep. 1825, 72 S. W. 
355. Tex. — San Antonio & A. P. E. 
Co. V. Safford (Tex. Civ. App.), 48 S. 
W. 1105. 

87. Louisville & N. E. E. Co. v. 
Cornelius, 183 Ala. 203, 62 So. 710; 
Birmingham Ey., L. & P. Co. v. Mc- 
Leod, 9 Ala. App. 637, 64 So. 193; 
Birmingham Ey., L. & P. Co. v. El- 
mit, 6 Ala. App. 653, 60 So. 981, he 
must show it to be a regular or cus- 
tomary stopping place, or that the de- 
fendant agreed to give him an oppor- 
tunity to get off there. 

[a] v&n allegation that the place 
was plaintiff's destination is insufS.- 
cient. Birmingham Ey., L. & P. Co. 
V. Elmit, 6 Ala. App. 653, 60 So. 981. 

88. Southern E. Co. v. Hobbs, 118 
Ga. 227, 45 S. E. 23, 63 L. E. A. 68, 
petition sufficient. 

89. Cook V. Southern E. Co., 153 
Ala. 118, 45 So. 156; Ohio & M. Ey. 
Co. V. Swarthout, 67 Ind. 567, 33 Am. 
Eep. 104; Ohio & M. Ey. Co. v. Hat- 
ton, 60 Ind. 12; Evansville & T. H. 
E. Co. V. Wilson, 20 Ind. App. 5, 50 
N. B. 90. 

90. Cook V. Southern K. Co., 153 



Ala. 118, 45 So. 156; Matthews v. 
Charleston & S. Ey. Co., 38 S. C. 429, 
17 S. E. 225, 37 Am. St. Eep. 773. 

91. Ala. — ^Birmingham, E. & B. E. 
Co. V. Wilson, 14 Ala. App. 235, 69 
So. 312 (holding complaint sufficient 
where plaintiff asked the conductor to 
stop car "at or near" a certain 
street); Birmingham Ey., L. & P. Co. 
V. Elmit, 6 Ala. App. 657, 60 So. 982, 
complaint sufficient. Ind. — Ohio & M. 
Ey. Co. V. Hatton, 60 Ind. 12; Evans- 
ville & T. H. R. Co. V. Wilson, 20 
Ind. App. 5, 50 N. E. 90. Miss.— See 
Wells V. Alabama G. S. R. Co., 67 
Miss. 24, 6 So. 737, in order to prove 
declarations of the ticket agent that 
plaintiff may board train without a 
ticket as tending to show a special 
contract, such declarations must "be al- 
leged. 

[a] It is sufficient in this respect to 
allege payment on the car to plain- 
tiff's destination. Birmingham Ey, 
L. & P. Co. V. Arnold, 7 Ala. App 
521, 60 So. 988. 

92. North Alabama T. Co. v. Dan 
iel, 158 Ala. 414, 48 So. 50; Birming- 
ham Ey., L. & P. Co. V. McDaniel 
6 Ala. App. 322, 59 So. 334. See 
Southern E. Co. v. Melton, 158 Ala. 
404, 47 So. 1008. 

[a] That the servant's act is wrong- 
ful must be shown. Birmingham Ey. 
L. & P. Co. V. McDaniel, 6 Ala. App! 
322, 59 So. 334. 

93. Louisville & N. E. E. Co. v. 
Cayce, 17 Ky. L. Eep. 1389, 34 S. W. 
896. 

94. Alabama City G. & A. E. Co 
V. Cox, 173 Ala. 629, 55 So. 909. 

[a] That the conductor was cog- 
nizant of the plaintiff's Ignorance of 
a safe route to the station, that the 
servants had reason to believe he 
would encounter danger, or that there 

Vol. XXI 



128 



PASSENGERS 



need not be alleged. 

(E.) Foe Negligent Giving op Wrong Tickets or Inpoemation.ss — Where 
the gravamen of the action is the giving of an improper ticket or 
transfer,'^ or the giving of incorrect information," negligence must 
be alleged, as must facts relied on entitling the plaintiff to go behind 
the contract shown by the ticket." 

(F.) For denial op accommodationsss to which a passenger is entitled 
by the rules and regulations of the carrier, it is suf&cient to state the 
rule or regulation,^ its reasonableness,^ that the plaintiff comes within 
it,^ and a breach thereof.* 

(V.) Demurrer jund Answer. — The carrier must demur or answer to 
the complaint or declaration in accordance with the general rules." 

(VI.) Variance. — The general rules as to variance are applicable 
in this class of actions.* 

(VII.) Questions of Law and Fact — The general rules as to the 
province of judge and jury apply in this class of actions.' 



was no open or safe way he could 
have walked back on, need not bo 
alleged. Alabama City G. & A. E. Co. 
V. Cox, 173 Ala. 629, 55 So. 909. 

95. Where gravamen of action is 
tortious expulsion from train, see 
infra, II, B, 2, c. 

96. See infra, this note. 

[a] An allegation of ejection be- 
cause of negligence in incorrectly 
punching a transfer is sufficient. Birm- 
ingham E., L. & P. Co. V. Turner, 154 
Ala. 542, 45 So. 671. 

97. See infra, this note. 

[a] That the informant represents 
the railroad company must be al- 
leged when alleging negligence in giv- 
ing incorrect information as to trains. 
Eiley v. Wrightsville & T. E. Co., 183 
Ga. 413, 65 S. E. 890, 24 L. E. A. 
(N. S.) 379, 18 Ann. Cas. 208. 

98. Mexican Cent. Ey. Co. v. Good- 
man (Tex. Civ. App.), 43 S. W. 580, 
where the agent told a husband he 
could sign his name to his wife's 
ticket. 

99. Actions for failure to reserve 
Bleeping car accommodations, see infra, 
II, B, 3. 

1. Day V. Owen, 5 Mich. 520, 72 
Am. Dec. 62. 

2. Day v. Owen, 5 Mich. 520, 72 
Am. Dec. 62, facts relied upon to show 
reasonableness need not be stated. 

3. Day v. Owen, 5 Mich. 520, 72 
Am. Dec. 62. 

[a] Where a white person ia com- 
pelled to ride with negroes, the peti- 
tion must allege that the plaintiff is 
a white person. Wolfe v. Georgia E. 

Vol. XXI 



& Elee. Co., 124 Ga. 698, 53 S. E. 
239. 

4. See Day v. Owen, 5 Mich. 520, 
72 Am. Dec. 62. 

5. See infra, this note, and the 
titles "Answers;" "Demurrer." 

[a] Defense that the demand for 
facilities was so sudden the carrier 
could not provide seats must be 
pleaded. Cave v. Seaboard A. L. By., 
94 S. C. 282, 77 S. E. 1017, Ann. Cas. 
1915A, 1065, L. E. A. 1915B, 915. 

6. See infra, this note, and gen- 
erally the title "Variance and Fail- 
ure of Proof." 

[a] Allegation (1) that the con- 
ductor wilfully failed to stop his train 
is not supported by proof of a mere 
neglect to do so. Louisville & N. E. 
Co. V. Johnston, 79 Ala. 486. (2) But 
in an allegation of negligent and wil- 
ful breach of contract of transporta- 
tion, the allegation as to wilfulness 
may be treated as surplusage and the 
plaintiff will recover on proof of sim- 
ple negligence. Alabama & V. E. Co. 
V. Hanes, 69 Miss. 160, 13 So. 246. 

[b] Where a passenger was car- 
ried by his destination, an allegation 
that he was carried to a particular 
place does not require proof that he 
was parried to that place as this al- 
legation is not descriptive of the neg- 
ligence. Henderson v. Metropolitan 
St. E. Co., 123 Mo. App. 666, 100 S. W. 
1111. 

7. See infra, this note and gen- 
erally the title "Province of Judge 
and Jury." 

[a] Thus, it is a question for tho 



PASSENGERS 



129 



b. Actions for Personal Injuries.^ —(I.) Form of* Action. — A pas- 
senger sustaining personal injuries at the hands of a carrier or its 
servants may sue for breach of the contract for safe carriage, where 
there is one, or in tort for breach of duty.^ 

(II.) Conditions Precedent.io —The giving of notice of injury is not 
a condition precedent to an action against the carrier for personal 
injuries," unless it is required by express statute," or by the con- 



jury (1) whether misinformation given 
to a passenger is inadvertently, reck- 
lessly or wantonly, given (Wileox v. 
Southern Ry., 91 S. C. 71, 74 S. E. 
122) ; (2) whether failure to stop a 
train at a station is wilful or capricious 
(Burns v. Alabama & V. E. Co., 93 
Miss. 816, 47 So. 640); (3) whether, 
signals are sufficient to attract the at- 
tention of the engineer (Louisville & 
N. K. Co. V. Moore [Ky.], 121 S. W. 
666); (4) whether passenger is com- 
pelled to walk on refusal of carrier to 
Btct) car for him (Northern T. T. Co. 
V. Hooper [Tex. Civ. App.], 80 S. W. 
US); (5) whether passenger is guilty 
of negligence in walking when carried 
beyond destination (St. Lou-is S. W. 
R. Co. V. Knight, 81 Ark. 429, 99 S. 
W. 684; Chesapeake & O. K. Co. v. 
Lynch, 28 Ky. L. Eep. 467, 89 S. "W. 
517), and (6) whether party has rea- 
sonable time and opportunity to board 
or alight. Lamson v. Great Northern 
B. Co., 114 Minn. 182, 130 N. W. 945, 
Ann. Cas. 1914A, 15. (7) Question 
of negligent delay is for the jury 
(Green v. Missouri, K. & T. R. Co., 
121 Mo. App. 720, 97 S. W. 646), (8) 
as is question of reasonableness of 
refusal of carrier's agent to sell a 
ticket to party apparently unable to 
travel alone after an explanation by 
him of his competency. Illinois Cent. 
E. Co. V. Smith, 85 Miss. 349, 37 So. 
643, 107 Am. St. Eep. 293, 70 'L. E. 
A. 642. 

8. Physical examination of injured 
passenger, see 9 Ency. of Ev. 783; and 
also the title "Physical Examina- 
tion." 

9. See the following: TT. S. — ^Atlan- 
tic & P. E. Co. V. Laird, 58 Fed. 760, 
7 C. C. A. 489. Ala.— Central of 
Georgia E. Co. v. Carleton, 163 Ala. 
62, 51 So. 27; Malcolm v. Louisville 
& N. E. Co., 155 Ala. 337, 46 So. 768, 
130 Am. St. Eep. 52, 18 L. E. A. 
(N. S.) 489. Cal.— Sheldon v. The 
Uncle Sam, 18 Cal. 526, 79 Am. Dec. 
193. Ga. — Patterson v. Augusta & S. 
E. Co., 94 6a. 140, 21 S. E. 283. lU. 



Frink v. Potter, 17 111. 406. Ind. 
Pittsburgh, C, C. & St. L. E. Co. v. 
Higgs, 165 Ind. 694, 76 N. E. 299, 4 
L. R. A. (N. S.) 1081; Rooker v. Bruce, 
45 Ind. App. 57, 90 N. E. 86. Ky. 
McMurtry v. Kentucky Cent. R. Co., 
84 Ky. 462, 1 S. W. 815. Md.— Balti- 
more C. P. R. Co. V. Kemp, 61 Md. 
619, 48 Am. Rep. 134, Mass.— McElroy 
V. Nashua & L. E. Corp., 4 Cush. 400, 
50 Am. Dec. 794. N. Y.— Gillespie v. 
Brooklyn H.' E. Co., 178 N. Y. 347, 
70 N. E. 857, 102 Am. St. Eep. 503, 
66 L. E. A. 618; Weed v. Saratoga 
& S. E. Cp^., 19 Wend. 534. N. 0. 
Purcell V. R'ichmond & D. R. Co., 108 
N. C. 414, 12 S. B. 954, 12 L. R. A. 
113. Ohio. — Pennsylvania R. Co. v. 
Peoples, 31 Ohio St. 537. Okla.— Mar- 
tin V. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co., 46 
Okla. 169, 148 Pac. 711. Pa.— Mc- 
Call V. Forsyth, 4 Watts & S. 179. 
Tex. — Sawyer v. El Paso & N. E. R. 
Co., 49 Tex. Civ. App. 106, 108 S. W. 
718. Wis. — Brown v. Chicago, M. & 
St. P. Ey. Co., 54 Wis. 342, 11 N. W. 
356, 911, 41 Am. Eep. 41. 

[a] Passenger assaulted may bring 
an action ex contractu or ex delicto. 
Ky. — Winnegar's Admr. v. Central Pass. 
Ey. Co., 85 Ky. 547, 4 S. W. 237. 
Me. — Goddard v. Grand Trunk Ry., 57 
Me. 202, 218, 2 Am. Rep. 39. Mass. 
Bryant v. Rich, 106 Mass. 180, 8 Am. 
Eep. 311. N. Y. — Busch v. Interbor- 
ough Eapid Transit Co., 187 N. Y. 
388, 80 n: B. 197, 10 Am. & Eng. 
Ann. Cas. 460; Stewart v. Brooklyn 
& C. E. Co., 90 N. Y. 588, l3 Am. 
Rep. 185. Tenn. — Knoxville Traction 
Co. V. Lane, 103 Tenn. 376, 53 S. W. 
557, 46 L. E. A. 549. 

10. See generally the title "Suits 
and Actions." 

11. Birmingham Ry. & Blee. Co v. 
Wildman, 119 Ala. 547, 24 So. 548. 

12. Conn. — Thorson v. Groton & S. 
St. E. Co., 85 Conn. 11, 81 Atl. 1024. 
Mass — Joslyn v. Milford H. & F. St. 
E. Co., 184 Mass. 65, 67 N. E. 866, 
statute does not apply where accident 
is not on a highway. S. D. — Smith 

Vol. XXI 



130 



PA88ENGEBS 



tract for transportation.^' 

(III.) Jurisdiction and Venue.— (A.) Geneeallt. -Such an action is 
transitory in character." In the absence of a statute localizing the 
action, it may be brought in any county in which process can be 
served." Statutes generally provide in what county the action shaU 

be brought.^' . ,. i. j 

(B.) Change op Venue. —The venue of the action may be changed 



V. Chicago, M. & St. P. R.. Co., 26 , 
S. D. 555, 128 N. W. 815. Tex.— Saw- 
yer V. El Paso & N. E. E. Co., 49 
Tex. Civ. App. 106, 108 S. W. 718. 

[a] Where the injury occurs in one 
state and the action is brought in 
another, which requires notice of in- 
jury, notice must be given if the 
action is in tort. But it is other- 
wise if the action is on contract and 
the lex loci contractus does not re- 
quire notice of injury. Sawyer v. El 
Paso & N. E. R. Co., 49 Tex. Civ. 
App. 106, 108 S. W. 718. 

13. Barber v. Chicago, E. I. & P. 
E. Co., 86 Kan. 277, 120 Pac. 359. 
See also Pittsburgh, C, C. & St. L. 
E. Co. V. Brown, 178 Ind. 11, 97 N. E. 
WS, 98 N. E. 625. 

[a] Application to Injuries in Board- 
ing Train. — Barber v. Chicago, E. I. 
& P. E. Co., 86 Kan. 277, 120 Pac. 
359. 

14. Chesapeake & O. E. Co. v. Cow- 
herd, 15 Ky. L. Eep. 160. 

[a] It may be brought in a state 
(1) other than that in which the in- 
jury is inflicted (1J. S. — Denver & E. 
G. R. Co. V. EoUer, 100 Fed. 738, 41 
C. C. A. 22, 49 L. E. A. 77. Ga. 
Mason v. Nashville, C. & St. L. E. 
Co., 135 Ga. 741, 70 S. E. 225, 33 
L. R. A. (N. S.) 280. Ky.— Chesapeake 
& O. R. Co. V. Cowherd, 15 Ky. L. 
Rep. 160. Miss. — New Orleans, J. & 
G. N. R. Co. V. Wallace, 50 Miss. 244. 
S. 0. — Crosby v. Seaboard A. L. E 
Co., 81 S. C. 24, 61 S. E. 1064. Tenn. 
Railroad Co. v. Kuhn, 107 Tenn. 106, 
64 S. W. 202; Mississippi & T. E. 
Co. V. Ayres, 16 Lea 725. Tex. — ^Mex- 
ican Cent. Ry. Co. v. Goodman, 20 
Tex. Civ. App. 109, 48 S. W. 778 
(where plaintiff was injured in Mex- 
ico) ; Mexican Cent. Ry. Co. v. Mit- 
ten, 13 Tex. Civ. App. 653, 36 S. W. 
282. Wis.— Curtis v. Bradford, 33 
Wis. 190), or (2) in which the con- 
tract of carriage is made. Indiana, I. 
& I. R. Co. V. Masterson, 16 Ind. App. 
323, 44 N. E. 1004. 

Vol. XXI 



15. Chesapeake & O. R. Co. v. Cow- 
herd, 15 Ky. L. Rep. 160. 

16. See generally the statutes, and 
infra, this note. 

[a] It is generally required (1) 
that such actions shall be brought in 
the county in which the defendant 
resides (Virginia & S. W. Ry. Co. v. 
Hollingsworth, 107 Va. 359, 58 S. E. 
572), or (2) in which the plaintiff is 
injured (Virginia & S. W. Ry. Co. v. 
Hollingsworth, 107 Va. 359, 58 S. E. 
572), or (3) in which he resides, if 
he resides in a county into which the 
carrier passes (Louisville & N. R. Co. 
V. Mitchell, 162 Ky. 253, 172 S. W. 
527; N. N. & M. V. Co. v. Boles, 13 
Ky. L. Rep. 208 [ownership of tracks 
immaterial] ) , or (4) in any county into 
or through which the railroad passes. 
Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Eeed, 223 
Fed. 689, 139 C. C. A. 192. 

[b] Statute applies to actions 
brought in the forum for injuries re- 
ceived in another state from a non- 
resident carrier. Chesapeake & 0. E. 
Co. V. Cowherd, 15 Ky. L. Eep. 160. 

[c] Where the plaintiff is trans- 
ported by two or more railroads, see 
Blanks v. Missouri, K. & T. E. Co. 
(Tex. Civ. App.), 116 S. W. 377, con- 
struing the Texas statute. 

[d] Continuing Act. — ^Parris v. At- 
lanta, K. & N. E. Co., 128 Ga. 434, 
57 S. E. 692; Atlantic Coast L. E. 
Co. V. Powell, 127 Ga. 805, 56 S. E. 
1006, 9 L. E. A. (N. S.) 769, 9 Ann. 
Cas. 553. See also Southern B. Co. 
V. Harrington, 166 Ala. 630, 52 So. 57, 
139 Am. St. Rep. 59. 

[e] The county in which the per- 
sonal representative resides is a proper 
county although his intestate was 
killed in another county. Illinois Cent. 
R. Co. V. Stith's Admx., 120 Ky. 237, 
85 S. W. 1173, 1 L. R. A. (N. S.) 
1014. See Louisville & N. E. Co. v. 
Cooley's Admr., 20 Ky. L. Eep. 1372, 
49 S. W. 339, holding the county of 
the residence of the intestate where 
the representative qualified, to be the 



PASSENGERS 



131 



in accordance with the general rules relating to changing venue.^' 
(IV.) Parties. —The general rules relating to parties apply in this 
class of actions.^' The carrier and its negligent servant may be 
joined;^® and if a person not a servant of the carrier is also a joint 
trespasser with the servant of the company, he may be joined.^" If 
an injury results from the concurrent negligence of two or more 
carriers, the plaintiff may sue either separately or both in one action.^^ 
And as the lessor of a railroad is liable for the torts of the lessee, 
the plaintiff may sue each separately or both in one aetion.^^ If the 
railroad company is in the hands of a receiver, the action must be 
brought against him in accordance with the general rules regulating 
receiverships."' 



proper county. Tlie residence of the 
personal representative is not disclosed 
by the case. 

[f] In an action against the car- 
rier and another as joint trespassers, 
the action may be brought in the 
county of the residence of the latter 
under a statute so providing in the 
case of joint trespassers generally. 
Central of Georgia E. Co. v. Brown, 
113 Ga. 414, 38 S. E. 989, 84 Am. 
St. Kep. 250. 

[g] Where Case Is Not Within 
Statute. — Chesapeake & O. E. Co. v. 
Cowherd, 15 Ky. L. Eep. 160. 

17. See infra, this note, and gen- 
erally the title "Change of Venue." 

[a] Convenience of Witnesses. 
Neelev v. Erie E. Co., 134 App. Div. 
781, 119 N. Y. Supp. 953. 

18. See Citizens' St. E. Co. v. Shep- 
herd, 30 Ind. App. 193, 65 N. E. 765 
(as to right to join company to which 
franchise of railroad company is trans- 
ferred); .also the titles "Corpora- 
tions;" "Parties." 

[a] A shipper of live stock who 
agrees to hold a carrier harmless for 
any damages sustained by the person 
accompanying the stock, is not a neces- 
sary party to an action by the care- 
taker against the carrier. Misiouri, 
K. & T. E. Co. V. Lynn (Okla.), 161 
Pac. 1058. 

19. TJ. S. — ^Bryee v. Southern E. Co., 
125 Fed. 958. Ga. — Central of Georgia 
E. Co. V. Brown, 113 Ga. 414, 38 S. 
B. 989, 84 Am. St. Eep. 250. lU. 
Wabash, St. L. & P. Ey. Co. v. Shack- 
let, 105 111. 364, 379, 44 Am. Eep. 
791. Hont. — Emerson v. Butte Elec. 
E. Co., 46 Mont. 454, 129 Pac. 319; 
Knuckey v. Butte Elec. E. Co., 41 Mont. 
314, 109 Pae. 979. N. J.— Whalen v. 
Pennsylvania E. Co., 73 N. J. L. 192, 



63 Atl. 993. Tex.— Texas & P. Ey. 
Co. V. Miller, 79 Tex. 78, 15 S. W. 
264, 23 Am. St. Eep. 308, 11 L. E. 
A. 395. 

See also the titltf "Master and 
Servant." 

20. Central of Georgia E. Co. v. 
Brown, 113 Ga. 414, 38 S. E. 989, 84 
Am. St. Eep. 250. 

21. U. S.— Atlantic & P. E. Co. v. 
Laird, 164 IT. S. 393, 17 Sup. Ct. 120, 
41 L. ed. 485. Cal. — Eankin v. Cen- 
tral Pac. B. Co., 73 Cal. 93, 15 Pac. 
57; Tompkins j;. Clay St. H. E. Co., 
66 Cal. 163, 4 Pac. 1165. D. C— Wash- 
ington & G. E. Co. V. Hiekey, 5 App. 
Cas. 436, 470. lU.— Wabash, St. L. 
& P. Ey. Co. V. Shacklet, 105 111. 
364, 44 Am. Eep. 791. Ind.— Frank 
Bird Transfer Co. v. Krug, 30 Ind. App. 
602, 65 N. E. 309. Mich.— Cuddy v. 
Horn, 46 Mich. 596, 10 N. W. 32, 41 
Am. Eep. 178. Minn. — Flaherty v. Min- 
neapolis & St. L. E. Co., 39 Minn. 328, 
40 ,N. W. 160, 12 Am. St. Eep. 654, 
1 L. E. A. 680. Mo.— McFadden v. 
Metropolitan St. E. Co., 161 Mo. App. 
652, 143 S. W. 884. N. Y.— Colegrove 
V. New York & N. H. E. Co., 20 N. Y. 
492, 75 Am. Dec. 418. Pa.— Bunting 
P. Hogsett, 139 Pa. 363, 21 Atl. 31, 
33, 34, 23 Am. St. Eep. 192, 12 L. E. 
A. 268. 

[a] The Pullman company and the 
railway company may be joined in ac- 
tion for allowing fellow passenger to 
use indecent language in a Pullman 
car. Houston, E. & W. T. Ey. Co. 
V. Perkins, 21 Tex. Civ. App. 508, 52 
S. W. 124. 

22. Carleton v. Yadkin E. Co., 143 
N. C. 43, 55 S. B. 429, 10 Ann. Cas. 
348. 

23. See infra, this note, and gen- 
erally the title "Receivers." 

Vol. XXI 



132 



PASSENGERS 



(V.) Declaration or Complaint. — (A.) Matters RELATtNG to Complaints 
Genekallt. — (1.) Generally^ —It is generally sufficient in an action 
against a carrier for injuries to a passenger to aver the relation of 
carrier and passenger, a breach of the duty owing from the former 
to the latter, and an injury in consequence thereof.^^ 

(2.) Alleging Relation of Carrier and Pms€ng>6r. — PlaintifE must allege 



[a] Where a passenger is killed 
after foreclosure sale while the road 
is still being operated by a receiver, 
and the decree provides that the pur- 
chasers shall pay all obligations of the 
receiver, and the receiver shall be dis- 
charged except that he may defend 
any suits pending, or that may be 
brought, an action for damages for 
such death is properly brought against 
both the receiver and the purchaser. 
Denver & R. G. E. Co. v. Gunning, 33 
Colo. 280, 80 Pac. 727. 

24. Presumptions of negligence from 
fact of accident, see 2 Enct. of Ev. 
908. 

25. Birmingham By., L. & P. Co. 
13. Yates, 169 Ala. 381, 53 So. 915; 
Birmingham Ry., L. & P. Co. v. Bar- 
rett, 4 Ala. App. 347, 58 So. 760; 
Florida E. C. Ry. v. Hayes, 66 Ela. 
589, 64 So. 274. See generally the 
titles "Injuries to Persons and Prop- 
erty;" "Negligence." 

[a] The kind of train on which be 
was ft passenger should be averred. 
St. Louis, I. M. & 8. R. Co. v. Wright. 
105 Ark. 269, 150 S. W. 706. 

[b] Where a passenger on a freight 
train claims the right to alight at 
intermediate stations for certain pur- 
poses he must, as against special de- 
murrer, set out th« proviBious of the 
contract entitling him to do so. In- 
ternational & G. N. R. Co. V. Downing, 
16 Tex. Civ. App. 643, 41 S. W. 190, 
a general demurrer will not reach the 
omission. 

Forms of complaint, see 9 Standard 
Pboc. 940. 

[c] Complaints in Particular Cases 
Held Sufficient.— IT. S. — Chicago, R. I. 
& P. Co. V. Stephens, 218 Fed. 535, 
134 C. C. A. 263, injuries sustained 
by discontinuance of trains. Ala. 
Alabama 6. S. B. Co. v. Robinson, 183 
Ala. 265, 62 So. 813 (impriannment in 
toilet becauae of defects in the lock) ; 
Birmingham Ry., L. & P. Co. v. .Tor- 
dan, 170 Ala. 530, 54 So. 280 (injury 
by explosion on ear); Central of Geor- 
gia R. Co. 1}. Carleton, 163 Ala. 62, 

Vol. XXI 



51 So. 27 (passenger thrown from 
train when going from one coaeh to 
another) ; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
Weathers, 163 Ala. 48, 50 So. 268 (in- 
jury from smoke to blind passenger 
put in smoking ear) ; Alabama G. S. 
R. Co. V. Collier, 112 Ala. 681, 14 So. 
327 (injuries from breaking of bottle 
of fire extinguisher) ; Birmingham Ry., 
L. & P. Co. V. Hunnicutt, 3 Ala. App. 
448, 57 So. 262, injuries by being 
thrown from crowded street car run 
at high rate of speed. Ga. — Georgia 
R. & B. Co. V. Adams, 127 Ga. 408, 
56 S. E. 409 (injury to passenger on 
■station platform by passing train) ; 
Primus v. ]\£aeon R. & L. Co., 126 Ga. 
667, 55 S. E. 924, wanton pushing 
child from moving oar. Ind. — Curtis 
V. Mauger, 114 N. E. 408 (passenger 
killed by being struck bj' coach while 
walking down track to board a train) ; 
Pittsburgh, C, C. & St. L. R. Co. v. 
Schepmau, 171 Ind. 71, 84 N. E. 988; 
Citizens' St. R. Co. v. Shepherd (Ind. 
App.), 59 N. E. 349, where conductor 
stood on passenger's skirt while car 
moved away. Mich. — Hopkins v. Mich- 
igan Traction Co., 144 Mich. 359, 107 
N. W. 909, where plaintiff touched live 
wire hanging from ear thinking it a 
rope. N. J. — Miller v. West Jersey & 
8. _R. Co. (N. J. L.), 71 Atl. 1113, 
action for injuries received on plat- 
form of a station by use of trucks 
by agents of another company. Tex. 
Foreman v. Mi-ssouri Pac. R. Co., 4 
Tex. Civ. App. 54, 23 S. W. 422, board- 
ine train in motion where conductor 
told passenger the train would stop 
five minutes but it did not do so. 
Wash.— Elliott V. Seattle, R. & S. R. 
Co., 68 Wash. 129, 122 Pac. 614, 39 
L. R, A. (N. S.) 608, where passen- 
ger alighting on wrong side of street 
car is injured by street car on ad- 
joining track. 

rdl Banana Peel on Floor of Car. 
Pittsburgh, C, C. & St. L. Ry. Co. 
". Itose, 40 Ind. App. 240, 79 'N. B. 
1094: Dallas C. E. S. E. Co. v. Black, 
40 Tex. Civ. App. 415, 89 S. W. 1087. 

[e] Defects in Oar Step. — Wilbur 



PA8SENGEBS 



133 



the existence between him and the defendant of the relation of carrier 
and passenger.^* 

(3.) Alleging Duties of Carrier — The relationship of carrier and pas- 
senger being alleged,^^ it is not necessary to specifically allege the 
duties of the carrier as the law fixes them.^* 

(4.) Alleging Negligence. — A passenger who has alleged the relation- 
ship of carrier and passenger may allege the negligence of the car- 
rier generally,^" or he may, if he desires to do so, set up the par- 



V. Ehode Island Co., 27 E. I. 205, 61 
Atl. 601. 

26. Ala. — Knight V. Tombigbee V. 
E. Co., 190 Ala. 140, 67 So. 238; Louis- 
ville & N. E. Co. V. Glascow, 179 Ala. 
251, 60 So. 103; Broyles v. Central of 
Georgia E. Co., 166 Ala. 616, 52 So. 
81, 139 Am. St. Eep. 50. HI.— "Wabash 
W. Ey. V. Friedman, 146 111. 583, 30 
N. E. 353, 34 N. E. 1111; Barger v. 
North Chicago St. E. Co., 54 111. App. 
284. Ind, — Smith v. Louisville, E. & 
St. L. E. Co., 124 Ind. 394, 24 N. E. 
753. La. — Mills v. St. Tammany & N. 
O. E. & F. Co., 139 La. 285, 71 So. 
511. IMiss. — Powell v. East Tennessee, 
V. & G. E. Co., 8 So. 738. Mo.— Scott 
V. Metropolitan S. E. Co., 138 Mo. App. 
196, 120 S. W. 131; "Whitehead v. St. 
Louis, I. M. & S. E. Co., 22 Mo. App. 
60. Neb.— Fremont, E. & M. V. E. 
Co. V. Hagblad, 72 Neb. 773, 789, 101 
N. W. 1033, 106 N. "W. 1041, 4 L. E. 
A. (N. S.) 254. N. O.— Conley v. 
Eichmond & D. E. Co., 109 N. C. 692, 
14 S. E. 303. S. C— Creech v. Charles- 
ton & "W. C. E. Co., 66 S. C. 528, 45 
S. E. 86. Tex.— Gulf, C. & S. F. E. 
Co. V. Gorman, 6 Tex. Civ. App. 230, 
25 S. "W. 992. Va. — Washington-Va. 
E. Co. V. Bouknight, 113 Ya. 696, 75 
S. E. 1032, Ann. Cas. 1913E, 546; Eich- 
mond City Ey. Co. v. Scott, 86 Va. 902, 
11 S. E. 404. Wis. — Brown v. Chicago, 
M. & St. P. Ey. Co., 54 "Wis. 342, 11 N. 
W. 356, 911, 41 Am. Eep. 41. 

Manner of averring relationship of 
carrier and passenger, see supra, II, 
A, 2, b (II). 

27. See supra, II, B, 2, b, (V), 
(A), (2). 

28. U. S.— Atlantic & P. E. Co. v. 
Laird, 58 Fed. 760, 7 C. C. A. 489. 
Ala. — ^Birmingham E., L. & P. Co. v. 
Garrett, 73 So. 818; Atkinson v. Dean, 
73 So. 479; Birmingham Ey., L. & P. 
Co. ■». Adams, 146 Ala. 267, 40 So. 
385, 119 Am. St. Eep. 27; Birming- 
ham Ey., L. & P. Co. V. Anderson, 3 
Ala. App. 424, 57 So. 103. lU.— Eueh 



v. Aurora, E. & C. E. Co., 150 111. App. 
329. Ind.— Evansville & C. E. Co. v. 
Duncan, 28 Ind. 441, 92 Am. Dec. 322; 
"Winona & "W. E. Co. v. Eousseau, 48 
Ind. App. 248, 98 N. E. 34, 1028. N. J. 
Breese v. Trenton Horse E. Co., 52 N. 
J. L. 250, 19 Atl. 204. 

[a] An allegation setting up a high- 
er degree of care than the law exacts 
will be treated as surplusage. Ruch 
V. Aurora, E. & C. E. Co., 150 111. 
App. 329; Brogan v. Union T. Co., 76 
"W. Va. 698, 86 S. E. 753. 

29. Ala. — Seaboard A. L. E. Co. v. 
Mobley, 194 Ala. 211, 69 So. 614; 
Birmingham Ey., L. & P. Co. v. 
O'Brien, 185 Ala. 617, 64 So. 343; 
Birmingham Ey., L. & P. Co. v. Harris, 
165 Ala. 482, 51 So. 607. lU.— Lavis 
V. "Wisconsin Cent. E. Co., 54 111. App. 
636, where plaintifE was thrown off 
• train by a lurch. Ind. — Indiana Union 
Tract. Co. v. Jacobs, 167 Ind. 85, 78 
N. E. 325; Terre Haute & I. E. Co. 
V. Sheeks, 155 Ind. 74, 94, 56 N. E. 
434. Ky. — Paducah T. Co. v. Baker, 
130 Ky. 360, 113 S. W. 449, 18 L. E. 
A. (N. S.) 1185. Mass.— "Ware v. 
Gay, 11 Pick, 106, where stage coach 
broke down. Mo. — Eoscoe v. Metro- 
politan S. E. Co., 202 Mo. 576, 101 
S. "W. 32; Hamilton v. Metropolitan St. 
E. Co., 114 Mo. App. 504, 89 S. "W. 
893; Jacquin v. Grand Ave. Cable Co., 
57 Mo. App. 320. Neb. — Fremont, E. 
& M. V. e; Co. V. Hagblad, 72 Neb. 
773, 101 N. W. 1033, 106 N. "W. 1041, 
4 L. E. A. (N. S.) 254. S. C— Mad- 
den V. Port Eoyal & W. C. Ey. Co., 
35 S. C. 381, 14 S. E. 713, 28 Am. 
St. Eep. 855. Tex.— San Antonio 
Tract. Co. v. "Williams, 34 Tex. Civ. 
App. 372, 78 S. "W. 977. 

See generally the title "Negli- 
gence. ' ' 

fa] It is in general sufficient to 
allege that the defendant carrier neg- 
ligently did or omitted the act or 
acts that proximately caused or con- 
tributed to causing the injury as stated, 

Vol. XXI 



134 



PASSENGERS 



tieular acts or omission constituting it.^" An allegation of the negli- 
gence of the servant is a sufficient charge of negligence of the ear- 
rier.^^ 

If the senrant of the carrier is joined, as a defendant with the carrier, 
it is necessary, in order to charge the servant personally, to do more 
than allege negligence or joint negligence with the carrier. . Facts on 
which this charge is made must be stated.^^ 

(5.) Allegations as to Employes. — (a.) Generally ,A passenger need 

not allege the name of the employe whose negligence or acts were 
the cause of his injury,^^ or show his ignorance thereof.^* Nor need 
he state the character of the service the employe was engaged in,^' 



duly alleging the specific act that 
actually caused the injury. AlEU — Ala- 
bama G. S. K. Co. V. Gilbert, 6 Ala. 
App. 372, 60 So. 542. Cal.— Gary v. Los 
Angeles R. Co., 157 Cal. 599, 108 Pac. 
682, 27 L. E. A. (N. S.) 764. Fla. 
Barnwell v. Seaboard A. L. By., 74 
So. 497; Warfield v. Hepburn, 62 Pla. 
409, 57 So. 618. Ind.— Citizens' St. 
E. Co. V. Jolly, 161 Ind. 80, 67 N. B. 
935. See generally the title "Negli- 
gence." 

[b] It is sufficient to allege that 
the said injury was proximately 
caused by the negligence of the de- 
fondant's servants in and about the 
carriage of the plaintiff as .a passen- 
ger. Atkinson v. Dean (Ala.), 73 So. 
479; Western Ey. of Alabama v. 
Foshee, 183 Ala. 182/ 62 So. 500; Birm- 
ingham E., L. & P. Co. V. Weathers, 
164 Ala. 23, 51 So. 303. See Philadel- 
phia, B. & W. E. Co. V. Allen, 102 
Md. 110, 62 Atl. 245; also Brien v. 
Bennett, 8 Gar. & P. 724, 34 E. C. L. 
984. Contra: Del. — Riedel v. Wilming- 
ton City E. Co., 5 Penne. 572, 64 Atl. 
257; King v. Wilmington & N. C. Elee. 
Ey. Co., 1 Penne. 452, 41 Atl. 975. 
ria. — Warfield v. Hepburn, 62 Fla. 
409, 57 So. 618. Vt.— Devino v. Cen- 
tral Vt. E. Co., 63 Vt. 98, 20 Atl. 
953. 

[e] Great generality permitted. 
Birmingham Ey., L. & P. Go. v. Mc- 
Curdy, 172 Ala. 488, 55 So. 616. 
' [d] An omission of the word "neg- 
ligence" renders the allegation insuffi- 
cient, no attempt being made to state 
the facts. Birmingham E., L. & P. 
Co. V. Garrett (Ala.), 73 Ala. 818. 

[e] The particular act or acts al- 
leged to have been negligently dons 
must be specified. Gary v. Los An- 
geles E, Co., 157 Cal. 599, 108 Pae. 682, 
27 L. E. A. (N. S.) 764. 

30. Indiana Union Tract. Co. v. Mc- 

Vol. XXI 



Kinney, 39 Ind. App. 86, 78 N. E. 
203; Hamilton v. Metropolitan St. E. 
Co., 114 Mo. App. 504, 89 S. W. 893. 

[a] By making specific allegations 
of negligence the passenger abandons 
the presumption of negligence arising 
from the fact of the accident, and the 
sufficiency of his pleading will be de- 
termined by the rules applicable to 
cases where the relation of carrier and 
passenger is not present. Ala. — Birpi- 
ingham Ey., L. & P. Co. v. O'Brien, 
185 Ala. 617, 64 So. 343; Birmingham 
Ey., L. & P. Co. V. Weathers, 164 Ala. 
23, 51 So. 303. Ind.— Ft. Wayna & 
N. L T. Co. V. Kumb (Ind. App.), 116 
N. E. 309. Mo.— Kennedy v. Metro- 
politan St. E. Co., 128 Mo. App. 297, 
107 S. W. 16; Hamilton v. Metro- 
politan St. E. Co., 114 MTo. App. 504, 
89 S. W. 893. Contra, Washington- 
Va. E. Co. V. Boukuight, 113 Va. 696, 
75 S. E. 1032, Ann. Cas. 191 3E, 546; 
Walters v. Seattle, E. & S. E. Co., 48 
Wash. 233, 93 Pac. 419, 24 L. E A. 
(N. S.) 788. 

[b] If the specific facts show there 
is no duty within the meaning of the 
general allegations as to duty and neg- 
ligence, the declaration is bad. Barn- 
well V. Seaboard A. L. Ey. CFla.'). 74 
So. 497. 

31. Columbus, C. & I. C. E. C6. v. 
Powell, 40 Ind. 37. Converse, Birm- 
ingham E., L. & P. Co. V. Moore, 148 
Ala. 115, 42 So. 1024. 

32. Bryce v. Southern E. Co.. 125 
Fed. 958. 

33. Birmingham Ey., L. & P. Co. 
V. Goldstein, 181 Ala. 517, 61 So. 281; 
Armstrong v. Montgomery St. Ey. Co., 
123 Ala. 233, 26 So. 349. • 

34. Armstrong v. Montgomery St. 
Ey. Co., 123 Ala. 233, 245, 26 So. 
349. ' 

35. Birmingham By., L. & P. Co. 



PASSENGERS 



135 



although it has been held that a complaint by a trespasser for assault 
by defendant's servants should do so.^° 

(b.) Alleging Acts To Be in Scope of Employments'! — Under the doc- 
trine that carriers are not responsible to their passengers for tortious 
or negligent acts of their servants without the scope of their employ- 
ment, it is necessary to show that the wrongful act of the servant 
was within the line of his duties.^^ But under the doctrine that 
carriers owe the duty to passengers to protect them from personal 
violence or insult from its employes or servants, it is not necessary 
to allege that an assault by a servant of the defendant upon a passen- 
ger was committed within the scope of his duties, the relation of 
carrier and passenger being shown.^^ If this relationship is not shown, 
however, it must be alleged that the assault was within the scope of 
the servant's duties,*" or was done by authority of the defendant 
company.*^ This fact need not be alleged in terms ;*^ and a direct 



V. Goldstein, 181 Ala. 517, 61 So. 281, 
action for wanton eollision. 

36. Smith v. Louisville, E. & St. 
L. R. Co., 124 Ind. 394, 24 N. E. 753, 
whether brakeman, baggageman and 
the like. 

37. See generally the title "Master 
and Servant." 

In ejection cases, see infra, II, B, 
2, e, (IV), (B), (2), (a). ^ ^ ^ ^ 

38. Ga.— Savannah F. & W. Ry. Co. 
V. "Wall, 96 Ga. 328, 23 S. E. 197; 
Peeples v. Brunswick & A. R. Co., 60 
Ga. 281. Ind. — Smith v. Louisville, E. 
& St. L. R. Co., 124 Ind. 394, 24 N. 
E. 733; Pittsburgh, C. & St. L. R. 
Co. V. Theobald, 51 Ind. 246. Md. 
Philadelphia, B. & W. R. Co. 11. Green, 
110 Md. 32, 71 Atl. 986. Mo.— McPeak 
V. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co., 128 Mo. 617, 
30 S. W. 170. 

39. Birmingham Ry., L. & P. Co. 
V. Harden, 156 Ala. 244, 47 So. 327; 
Birmingham Ry. & Elec. Co. v. Mason, 
.137 Ala. 342, 34 So. 207. But see Ala- 
bama G. S. R. Co. V. Pouncey, 7 Ala. 
App. 548, 61 So. 601, which was an 
action for use of abusive language by 
a servant. 

40. Ala. — Birmingham Ey. & Elec. 
Co. V. Mason, 137 Ala. 342, 34 So. 207. 
Ind.^-Smith v. Louisville, E. & St. L. 
E. Co., 124 Ind. 394, 24 N. E. 753. 
Mo.— McDonald v. St. Louis & S. F. 
R. Co., 165 Mo. App. 75, 146 S. W. 
83. 

41. Birmingham Ey. & Elec. Co. v. 
Mason, 137 Ala. 342, 34 So. 207. 

42. Ala.— Kansas City, M. & B. E. 
Co. V. Matthews, 142 Ala. 298, 39 So. 
207. Ind.— Louisville, N. A. & C. R. 
Co. V. Wood, 113 Ind. 544, 14 N. E. 



572, 16 N. E. 197. Mo.— Austin v. St. 
Louis & S. P. R. Co., 149 Mo. App. 
397, 130 S. W. 385. 

[a] It is sufficiently shown by an 
averment (1) that the act was done 
by an employe or servant in charge 
of a train or waiting room (Ind| 
Indianapolis St. Ey. Co. v. Schmidt, 
163 Ind. 360, 71 N. B. 201; Indianapolis 
Traction & T. Co. v. Formes, 40 Ind. 
App. 202, 80 N. E. 872. Md.— Philadel- 
phia, B. & W. E. V. Green, 110 Md. 
32, 71 Atl. 986. Tex.— Texas & P. 
Ey. Co. V. Boyd [Tex. Civ. App.], 141 
S. W. 1076), or (2) an averment that 
said injuries were caused by the neg- 
ligence of the defendant (Louisville, 
N. A. & C. E. Co. v. Kendall, 138 
Ind. 313, 36 N. E. 415), or (3) by 
the act of the defendant by its em- 
ployes, servants and agents. Southern 
E. Co. v.- Clone, 51 Ind. App. 300, 99 
N. E. 762. 

[b] An averment that it is a duty 
of a brakeman to look after the safe 
debarkation of passengers, and a state- 
ment of the acts of the brakeman in 
assisting the passenger to alight show 
his acts to be connected with the 
service. Pittsburgh, C, C. & St. L. 
Ey. Co. V. Gray (Ind. App.), 59 N. E. 
1000. See also St. Louis S. W. E. Co. 
V. Kennedy (Tex. Civ. App.), 96 S; W. 
653. 

[c] Apparent Authority. — Where 
an agent makes representations as to 
other routes in order to induce per- 
sons to take passage on his road, the 
acts are within the scope of his ap- 
parent authority, and in an action for 
injuries, it is unnecessary to allege a 
custom of the defendant or authority 

Vol. XXI 



136 



PASSENGERS 



allegation is not necessary where the scope of servant 's duties is within 
the judicial knowledge of the court.*' 

(6.) Negativing Contributory Negligenoe. — Generally the plaintiff need 
not negative contributory negligence, unless this defense appears on 
the face of his pleading.** 

(7.) Injury and Damage The plaintiff must plead his damage in 

accordance with the general rules,*" showing a causal connection be- 
tween the negligent act complained of and the injury suffered,** 
and stating the time,*^ and place*^ of the injury. 

(8.) Joinder of Actions and Dv/glioity. — The general rules as to joinder 
of actions and duplicity apply to this class of actions.** 



of the agent to bind it in such mat- 
ters. St. Louis S. W. E. Co. v. White 
(Tex. Civ. App.), 86 8. W. 71. 

Where passenger is ejected, see infra, 
II, B, 2, c, (IV), (B), (2), (a). 

43. Terre Haute & I. E. Co. v. Me- 
Murray, 98 Ind. 358, 367, 49 Am. Eep. 
752 (conductor) ; Indianapolis & E. 
E. Co. V. Barnes, 35 Ind. App. 485, 74 
N. E. 583, conductor. 

Judicial notice as to duties of con- 
ductors, see 7 Enct. op Ev. 939, 940. 

44. Citizens' St. E. Co. v. Jolly, 161 
Ind. 80, 89, 67 N. E. 935; Kansas City, 
M. & O. Ey. Co. V. Young, 50 Tex. 
Civ. App. 610, 111 S. W. 764. See 
generally the title "Negligence." 

[a] Eule is otherwise (1) in some 
states (Burger v. Omaha & C. B. S. 
E. Co., 139 Iowa 645, 117 N. W. 35, 
130 Am. St. Eep. 343), except (2) in 
those eases where the facts show that 
the injury was the result solely of 
the negligence of the carrier as in de- 
railment cases for example. Burke v. 
Chicago & N. W. E. Co., 108 111. App. 
565 (where plaintiff was helpless); 
Bedford S. O. & B. E. E. Co. v. Eain- 
■bolt 99 Ind. 551 (where bridge gave 
way); Michigan S. & N. I. E. Co. v. 
Lantz, 29 Ind. 528. For present In- 
diana rule see supra, this note. See gen- 
erally the title "Negligence." 

45. Benver & E. G. E. Co. v. Boi- 
ler, 100 Fed. 738, 41 C. C. A. 22, 49 
L. E. A. 77; Pittsburgh, C, C. & St. 
L. E. Co. V. Brown, 178 Ind. 11, 97 
N. E. 145, 98 N. E. 625, holding al- 
legation sufficient. See 13 Standard 
Proc. 360. 

46. As to necessity for showing 
causal connection between injury and 
damage, see 13 Standard Proc. 353. 

[a] In derailment cases, the peti- 
tion need not allege that the injury 
was the result of a wrongful act or 
omission of the defendant, as that will 

Vol. XXI 



be presumed. Chicago, E. I. & P. E. 
Co. V. Young, 58 Neb. 678, 79 N. W. 
556. 

47. St. Louis, I. M. & S. E. Co. v. 
Wright, 105 Ark. 269, 150 S. W. 706. 

48. Birmingham E., L. & P. Co. v. 
Moore, 148 Ala. 115, 42 So. 1024 (hold- 
ing allegation sufficient as the court 
judicially knows in what county a city 
is situated); St. Louis, I. M. & S. E. 
Co. V. Wright, 105 Ark. 269, 150 S. W. 
706. 

[a] That the place where the ac- 
cident occurred Is between the place 
of departure and the destination need 
not be specifically alleged. Interna- 
tional & G. N. E. Co. V. Underwood, 
67 Tex. 589, 4 S. W. 216. 

49. See infra, this note, and gen 
erally the titles "Duplicity;" "Join- 
der of Actions." 

[a] Accordingly (1) the plaintiff 
may^ state separate and distinct con- 
curring acts that produce the accident 
and injury (New York, C. & St. L. 
E. Co. V. Callahan, 40 Ind. App. 223, 
81 N. E. 670; Padueah T. Co. v. Baker, 
130 Ky. 360, 113 S. W. 449, 18 L. E. 
A. (N. S.) 1185. See generally the 
title "Negligence"), or (2) he may 
in separate counts charge the acts of 
negligence in different ways to meet 
the proof. Froeming v. Stockton Elec. 
E. Co., 171 Cal. 401, 153 Pae. 712. 

[b] Thrown Prom Car and InjU'red 
While Alighting — A petition is not 
duplieitous which states in separate 
counts that plaintiff was thrown from 
a train without fault on his part and 
that he was injured by voluntarily 
attempting to leave the train. Gulf. 
C. & S. F. Ey. Co. V. Buford, 2 Tex. 
Civ. App. 115, 21 S. W. 272. 

[c] Refusal To Stop and Ejection. 
A count alleging a failure and refusal 
to stop at plaintiff's destination and 
an expulsion a short distance beyond 



PASSENGERS 



137 



" (9.) Amendment. — The plaintiff may amend his pleading in accord- 
ance with the general rules regulating amendmentSj^" if he does not 
thereby introduce a new and different cause of action.'^ 

(B.) Allegations in Particular Cases. — (1.) D^efecUve Condition of Prem- 
ises and InsUfflcient Accommodations at Stations. — A declaration or com- 
plaint for injuries received from a defective condition of the premises 
at or about a station,'^ or from insufScient accommodations at sta- 
tions'^ must allege negligence or a breach of duty in accord with the 
general rules. If statutory regulations are relied on, facts bringing 
the case within the statute must be alleged."* 

(2.) Failure To Assist Passenqers To Board or Alight and From Alighting 
at Unsafe Places. — If the negligence claimed is the omission to assist 
a passenger to board or alight from a train, the complaint must allege 
facts showing a duty to render assistance, as by showing sickness, 



joins case and trespass in one count. 
Louisville & N. E. K. Co. v. Dancy, 
97 Ala. 338, 11 So. 796. 

50. See infra, this section, and gen- 
erally the title "Amendments and 
Jeofails." 

[aj Oliarging Wilfulness. — Southern 
E. Oo. V, Jordan, 129 Ga, 665, 59 
S. B. 802. 

51. V. S.— Atlantic & P. E. Co. v. 
Laird, 164 U. S. 393, 17 Sup. Ct. 120, 
41 L. ed. 485, amendment dropping 
joint tortfeasor. Ala. — Alabama G. S. 
E. Co. V. Arnold, 80 Ala. 600, 2 So. 
337, amendment particularly describ- 
ing the platform so as to show the 
necessity for lights does not add cause 
of action. Ga. — Georgia E. & E. Co. 
V. Eeeves, 127 Ga. 697, 51 S. E. 610, 
adding new ground of negligence. 111. 
Steiskal v. Marshall Field & Co., 142 
111. App. 154; Chicago, T. T. K. Co. 
V. Young, 118 111. App. 226; Chicago 
& E. I. E. Co. V. Wallace, 104 111. 
App. 55. Mo. — Dougherty v. Missouri 
E. Co., 97 Mo. 647, 8 S. W. 900, 11 
S. W. 251; Patterson v. Springfield T. 
Co., 178 Mo. App. 250, 163 S. W. 955. 
Tex.— International & G. N. E. Co. 
V. Irvine, 64 Tex. 529; San Antonio 
Traction Co. v. Williams, 34 Tex. Civ. 
App. 372, 78 S. W. 977 (setting up 
particular negligence, the original al- 
legation being general) ; Mexican 
Cent. Ey. Co. v. Mitten, 13 Tex. Civ. 
App. 653, 36 S. W. 282. 

See generally the title "New Cause 
of Action or Defense." 

Amendment chauging misdescrip- 
tion of contract of carriage as chang- 
ing the cause of action, see the title 
"New Cause of Action or Defense." 

[a] Amendment cbanging the place 



where the injury occurred does not in- 
troduce a new cause of action. Chicago 
City E. Co. V. McMeen, 206 111. 108, 
118, 68 N. E. 1093; Cicero & P. S. 
E. Co. V. Brown, 89 111. App. 318. 

52. Louisville & N. E. Co. v. Dixon, 
176 Ky. 369, 195 S. W. 1099, holding 
complaint charging injuries sustained 
by falling through trap-door in sta- 
tion platform sufficient. 

[a] Insufficient Lights. — Stewart v. 
International & G. N. E. Co., 53 Tex. 
289, 37 Am. Eep. 753.i See alao Ala- 
bama G. S. E. Co. ». Godfrey, 156 
Ala. 202, 47 So. 1§5, 130 Am. St. 
Eep. 76 (falling into ditch near path- 
way); Central of Georgia E. Co. v. 
Campbell, 10 Ala. App. 288, 64 So. 
540 (complaint sufficient to show neg- 
ligent failure to light premises); 
Cleveland, C, C. & St. L. E. Co. v. 
Harvey, 45 Ind. App. 153, 90 N. E. 
318. 

[b] Wanton Injury. — An allegation 
that the defendant wantonly or inten- 
tionally left or permitted a hole or 
opening in its platform is insufficient 
to charge wantonness as the inference 
of wantonness does not necessarily 
follow from the facts stated. West- 
ern Ey. of Alabama v. Turrentine, 197 
Ala. 603, 73 So. 40. 

Injuries from alighting at unsafe 
place, see infra, II, B, 2, b, (V), (B), 
(2). 

53. Brown v. Georgia, C. & N. E. 
Co., 119 Ga. 88, 46 S. E. 71, failure to 
heat waiting room. 

54. Ala. — Page v. Louisville & N. 
E. Co., 129 Ala. 232, 29 So. 676. 
Ind.— Draper v. Evansville & T. H. E. 
Co., 165 Ind. 117, 74 N. E. 889. Ky, 
Ward V. Louisville & N. B. Co., 168 

Vol. XSl 



138 



PABSMGERS 



infirmity or the other cause known to the carrier,"^ a breach of such 
duty,°° and injury resulting therefrom.^' If an injury results from 
alighting at an unsafe place, complaints against railroad companies,^* 
or street car companies,"^ must state facts showing a breach of duty 
owing from the carrier to the passenger, and show the dangerous 
condition of the place of discharge of passengers,^" and that the plain- 



Ky. 826, 183 S. W. 211, under statute 
requiring stations to be kept open 
"until the train departs," complaint 
must allege that when the passenger 
found the waiting room closed, the 
train had not departed. 

55. Ind.— Lake Erie & W. E. Co. 
V. Beals, 50 lud. App. 450, 98 N. E. 
453. S. O. — See Madden v. Port Eoyal 
& W. C. Ey. Co., 35 S. C. 381, 14 
S. E. 713, 28 Am. St. Eep. 855. Tex. 
St. Louis S. W. E. Co. v. Kennedy 
(Tex. Civ. App.), 96 S. "W. 653. 

56. Georgia E. & B. Co. v. Eives, 
137 Ga. 376, 73 S. E. 645, 38 L. E. A. 
(N. S.) 564 (failure of conductor to 
assist blind person to alight) ; Lake 
Erie & W. E. Co. v. Beals, 50 Ind. App. 
450, 98 N. E. 453; Sellers v. Cleve- 
land, C. C, & St. L. E. Co., 40 Ind. 
App. 319, 81 N. E. 1087, complaint set- 
ting up failure to provide platform 
held inaufS.cient. 

57. Lake Erie & W. E. Co. v. Beals, 
50 Ind. App. 450, 98 N. E. 453. 

58. Ga. — Waldrup v. Central of 
Georgia E. Co., 127 6a. 359, 56 S. E. 
439 (complaint indefinite); Wilkes v. 
Western & A. E. Co., 109 Ga. 794, 35 
S. E. 165, where plaintiff was injured 
by splinter of wood on depot platform. 
Ind. — Evansville & C. E. Co. v. Dun- 
can, 28 Ind. 441, 92 Am. Dec. 322, in- 
juries from jumping from box car 
without steps before car reached plat- 
form. N. J. — Mettler v. Delaware, L. 
& W. E. Co., 77 N. J. L. 97, 71 Atl. 
111. S. 0. — Madden v. Port Eoyal & 
"W. C. Ey. Co., 35 S. 0. 381, 14 S. E. 713, 
28 Am. St. Eep. 855, holding allega- 
tions sufScient. Tex. — International 
& G. N. E. Co. V. Clark (Tex. Civ. 
App.), 71 S. W. 587 (holding peti- 
tion good against general demurrer); 
Missouri, K. & T. E. Co. v. Overfield, 
19 Tex. Civ. App. 440, 47 S. W. 684. 
Va. — Chesapeake & O. E. Co. v. Tins- 
ley, 116 Va. 600, 82 B. E. 732, com- 
plaint sufficient. 

59. Ala. — Montgomery St. E. Co. v. 
Mason, 133 Ala. 508, 526, 32 So. 261, 
complaint sufficient. Ind. — Indiana 
Union Tract. Co. v. Jacobs, 167 Ind. 85, 

Vol. XXI 



78 N. B. 325 (complaint sufficient); 
Et. Wayne & N. I. T. Co. v. Kumb 
(Ind. App.), 116 N. E. 309; Indianap- 
olis Tract. & T. Co. v. Pressell, 39 Ind. 
App. 472, 77 N. E. 357. Ky.— Murnahan 
V. Cincinnati, N. & C. St. E. Co., 27 
Ky. L. Eep. 737, 86 S. W. 688. N. Y. 
Page V. United T. Co., 161 App. Div. 
383, 146 N. Y. Supp. 530; Catterson v. 
Brooklyn Heights E. Co., 132 App. Div. 
399, 116 N. Y. Supp. 760, complaint 
sufficient. Va. — Eichmond City Ey. Co. 
V. Scott, 86 Va. 902, 11 S. E. 404, com- 
plaint sufficient. 

fa] Knowledge by the street car 
company of the defective condition of 
the street at the place the car stopped 
need not be alleged. Indiana Union 
Tract. Co. v. Jacobs, 167 Ind. 85, 78 N. 
E. 325. Contra, Murnahan v. Cincin- 
nati N. & C. St. E. Co., 27 Ky. L. Eep. 
737, 86 S. W. 688, holding that an aver- 
ment that the conductor failed to warn 
the_ passenger of the danger is not 
equivalent to an averment pf knowl- 
edge of the danger. 

[b] Ignorance by the passenger of 
the dangerous condition of the street 
at the place the car stopped because of 
blindness and the like must be shown. 
Indianapolis Tract. & T. Co. v. Pres- 
sell, 39 Ind. App. 472, 77 N. E. 357; 
Murnahan v. Cincinnati N. & C. St. E. 
Co., 27 Ky. L.' Eep. 737, 86 S. W. 688. 
But _ compare the cases cited above 
holding complaint sufficient, and see 
supra, IT, B, 2, b, (V), (6), as to 
necessity of negativing contributory 
negligence. 

60. Ga. — Seaboard Air Line E. Co. 
V. Olsen, 123 Ga. 612, 51 S. E. 591. Ind. 
Indianapolis Tract. & T. Co. v. Pres- 
sell, 39 Ind. App. 472, 77 N. E. 357. 
Ky. — Durham v. Louisville & N. E. 
E. Co., 16 Ky. L. Eep. 757, 29 S. W. 
737, averment that servant knew place 
was unsafe is insufficient to show place 
was in fact unsafe. Mo. — ^Fillingham 
V. St. Louis T., Co., 102 Mo. App. 573, 
77 8. W. 314. 

[a] A minute description of fhe 
place at which the stop was made need 
not be averred. Montgomery St. R. 



PASSENGERS 



139 



tiff sustained injuries because thereof/^ 

(3.) Alighting From Crowded Cars. — One injured by alighting from 
crowded cars must aver negligence in accordance with the general 
rules.°^ 

(4.) Sudden Starting, Jerlcing, or Lurching of Train or Cai-.es — A passenger 
injured by the sudden jerking or starting of a car or train while he 
is in the act of boarding or alighting, should allege that the car 
stopped,** or slowed down,*" at a regular stopping place,*" or that it 
stopped for the purpose of taking on or letting off passengers.*'' That 
the jerk, sudden starting, or acceleration was done,** through the 
agency of the defendant's servants,*' must be alleged, unless the facts 
disclosed themselves amount to negligence.'" It is generally sufScient, 



Co. V. Maaon, 133 Ala. 508, 526, 32 
So. 261: Catterson v. Brooklyn Heights 
E. Co., 132 App. Div. 399, 116 N. Y. 
Supp. 760. 

[b] What would constitute a safe 
place to alight need not be stated. 
Montgomery St. E. Co. v. Mason, 133 
Ala. 508, 526, 32 So. 261. 

61. Indianapolis Tract. & T. Co. v. 
Preasell, 39 Ind. App. 472, 77 N. E. 
357. 

Necessity for showing causal con- 
nection between injury and damage, 
see generally, 13 Standard Proc. 353. 

62. See infra, this note. 

[a] A declaration is sufficient which 
alleges that a street car company care- 
lessly and negligently suffered and 
permitted its ear exits and running 
board to be greatly crowded with pas- 
sengers, whereby plaintiff while at- 
tempting to alight, was thrown and 
injured. Dunham v. Public Service 
Corp., 76 N. J. L. 452, 69 Atl. 1012. 
See also Worthington v. Georgia E. & 
B. Co., 131 Ga. 450, 62 S. E. 525; Hous- 
ton & T. C. E. Co. V. Hubbard (Tex. 
Civ. App.), 37 S. W. 25, where plain- 
tiff was not given reasonable time to 
alight, the car being crowded. 

68. Form of complaint, see 9 Stand- 
ard Proc. 646. 

64. Gorza v. Peoria E. Co., 175 111. 
App. 117 (holding it will be implied 
from an allegation that the car started, 
that the car stopped before the pas- 
senger attempted to alight); Shareman 
V. St. Louis Transit Co., 103 Mo. App. 
515, 78 8. W. 846. But see Louisville 
& S. I. Tract. Co. v. Leaf, 40 Ind. App. 
214, 79 N. E. 1066. 

65. See Eome E. & L. Co. v. Keel, '• 
3 Ga. App. 769, 60 S. E. 468; Share- | 
man v. St. Louis Transit Co., 103 Mo. i 
App. 515, 78 8. W. 846. 



66. Louisville & 8. I. Tract. Co. v. 
Korbe, 175 Ind. 450, 93 N. B. 5, 94 N. 
E. 768; Terre Haute T. & L. Co. v. 
Payne, 45 Ind. App. 132, 89 N. B. 413; 
Hays V. Metropolitan St. E. Co., 182 
Mo. App. 393, 170 S. W. 414. Com- 
pare Knuckey v. Butte Elec. E. Co., 
41 Mont. 314, 109 Pac. 979, where 
plaintiff alleged the car stopped at his 
destination. 

[a] That the car stopped to allow 
passengers to board or alight need not 
be alleged where the car is stopped at 
a regular stopping place. Indianapolis 
& M. Eapid Transit Co. v. Walsh, 45 
Ind. App. 42, 90 N. B. 138. See Peter- 
son V. Metropolitan S. E. Co., 211 Mo. 
498, 515, 111 S. W. 37. 

67. Hays v. Metropolitan St. E. Co., 
183 Mo. App. 393, 170 S. W. 414. 

[a] That the car stopped in re- 
spouse to a signal shows that the car 
stopped to let off passengers. Winona 
& W. E. Co. V. Eousseau, 48 Ind. App. 
248, 93 N. E. 34, 1028; Hays v. Met- 
ropolitan St. B. Co., 182 Mo. App. 393, 
170 S. W. 414. 

68. Birmingham E. L. & P. Co. v. 
Weathers, 164 Ala. 23, 51 So. 303; Birm- 
ingham Ey. L. & P. Co. V. Parker, 156 
Ala. 251, 47 So. 138; Seeley v. Central 
Vermont E. Co., 88 Vt. 178, 92 Atl. 28. 

69. Kilson v. Oakland Traction Co., 
10 Cal. App. 103, 108, 101 Pac. 413, 21 
Am. Neg. Eep. 566, holding allegation 
to be implied from an allegation that 
the car was under the control of the 
defendant's servants. 

70. Ala. — Birmingham Ey. L. & P. 
Co. V. Parker, 156 Ala. 251, 47 So. 138. 
Ind. — Cincinnati, H. & I. E. Co. v. 
Worthington, 30 Ind. App. 663, 65 N. E. 
557, 66 N. E. 478, 96 Am. St. Eep. 355. 
Mo. — Keeton v. St. Louis & M. E. R. 
Co., 116 Mo. App. 281, 92 S. W. 512, 

Vol. XXI 



140 



PASSENGERS 



or 



whether the passenger is injured while aboard a train or car/^ 
while boarding or alighting therefrom/^ to allege that the defendant 
negligently started or stopped the car with a sudden jerk and in 
such a manner as to throw plaintiff down/' although it has been held 
necessary to show that the jerk or lurch was unusually violent, where 
the injury was received by a passenger aboard a train.'* It is not 
necessary to allege the particular methods by which the defendant's 
servants produced the jerk, lurch, stop or acceleration.'" Notice of 



even in such case, better practice re- 
quires breach of duty to be character- 
ized as negligence. 

71. Brady v. Springfield T. Co., 140 
Mo. App. 421, 124 S. W. 1070. 

72. Birmingham Ev. L. & P. Co. v. 
Weathers, 164 Ala. '23, 51 So. 303; 
Birmingham Ey. L. & P. Co. v. Parker, 
156 Ala. 251, 47 So. 138; Bobbitt v. 
United Eys. Co., 169 Mo. App. 424, 153 
S. W. 70. 

[a] Compare Saxton v. Missouri 
Pac. E. Co., 98 Mo. App. 494, 72 S. W. 
717, holding it should be stated that 
the jerk was extraordinary or more 
than a usual incident to the accelera- 
tion of the speed of the train under 
the circumstances. 

73. For complaints held to be suf- 
ficient, see the following. Ala. — Birm- 
ingham Ey. Ii. & P. Co. 1). Gonzalez, 
183 Ala. 273, 61 So. 80, Ann. CaB. 1916 
A, 543 (action for starting or jerking 
car or train while passenger boarding 
or alighting) ; Birmingham Ey. L. & 
P. Co. V. McGinty, 158 Ala. 410, 48 So. 
491; Southern E. Co. v. Hundley, 151 
Ala. 378, 44 So. 195, where lurch threw 
passenger about to alight from plat- 
form. Cal. — Nilson V. Oakland Trac- 
tion Co., 10 Cal. App. 103, 101 Pac. 413, 
21 Am. Neg. Eep. 566. Colo.— Fox v. 
Denver City Tramway Co., 57 Colo. 
511, 143 Pac. 278. Fla.— Florida E. C. 
E. Co. V. Carter. 67 Fla. 335, 65 So. 
254, Ann. Cas. 191 6E, 1299 (starting 
train before passenger got off); Flor- 
ida E. C. E. Co. V. Hayes, 66 Fla. 589, 
64 So. 274, "where plaintiff was thrown 
off crowded car by sudiJen stop. Ga. 
Western & A. E. Co. v. Eoberts, 144 Ga. 
250, 86 S. E. 933; Mack v. Savannah 
& S. E. Co., 118 Ga. 629, 45 S. E. 509; 
James v. Atlanta St. E. Co., 90 Ga. 695, 
16 S. E. 642; DouglaB, A. & G. E. Co. 
r. Swindle, 2 Ga. App. 550, 59 S. E. 
600. 111.— Chicago & A. E. Co. v. 
Clausen, 173 HI. 100, 50 N. E. 680; 
Wayne v. St. Louia & N. E. R. Co., 165 
111. App. 353; Euoh v. Aurora, E. & C. 

Vol, XXI 



E. Co., 150 111. App. 329, where plain- 
tiff was thrown from ear taking. switch 
at high rate of speed. Ind. — ^Baltimore 
& O. S. W. Ey. Co. V. Harbin, 160 Ind. 
441, 67 N. E. 109 (where passenger is 
thrown against seat by sudden stop); 
Louisville, N. A. & C. E. Co. v. Wood, 
113 Ind. 544, 14 N. E. 572, 16 N. E. 197 
(where conductor jerked passenger 
from train after it started) ; Public 
Utilities Co. v. Cosby, 60 Ind. App. 252, 
110 N. E. 576; Kokomo M. & W. Tract. 
Co. V. Walsh, 58 Ind. App. 182, 108 N. 
E. 19; Indiana Union Tract. Co. v. 
Bales, 58 Ind. App. 92, 107 N. E. 682; 
Lake Erie & W. E. Co. v. Cotton, 45 
Ind. App. 580, 91 N. E. 253; Indian- 
apolis Tract. & T. Co. V. Miller, 40 Ind. 
App. 403, 82 N. E. 113, complaint suffi- 
cient on appeal. Mo. — Peterson v. Met- 
ropolitan S. E. Co., 211 Mo. 498, 111 S. 
W. 37; Coudy v. St. Louis, I. M. & S. 
E. Co., 85 Mo. 79; Keeton v. St. Louis 
& M. E. E. Co., 116 Mo. App. 281, 92 
S. W. 512, starting car while plaintiff 
was boarding it. Tex. — Missouri, K. & 
T. E. Co. V. Moody, 35 Tex. Civ. App. 
46, 79 S. W. 856. Vt.— Seeley v. Cen- 
tral Vermont E. Co., .88 Vt. 178, 92 Atl. 
28. Wash. — Mueller v. Washington 
Water Power Co., 56 Wash. 556, 106 
Pac. 476. W. Va. — Duty v. Chesapeake 
& O. E. Co., 70 W. Va. 14, 73 S. E. 331. 

74. Connor v. Washington E. & E. 
Co., 43 App. Cas. (D. C.) 329; Missouri, 
K. & T. E. Co. V. Cobb, 60 Tex. Civ. 
App. 562, 128 S. W. 910, where plaintiff 
was a passenger in a box car. 

75. Ga. — Georgia E. & E. Co. v. 
Eeeves, 123 Ga. 697, 51 S. E. 610, 
Mich. — Schultz V. Michigan U. E Co., 
158 Mich. 665, 123 N. W. 594, 27 L. E. 
A. (N. S.) 503. R. I.— MeCauley v. 
Rhode Island Co., 25 E. I. 558, 57 Atl. 
376. 

fa] But a descriptlo.n of a curve as 
"sharp and dangerous" -is insufficient 
as against special demurrer. Central of 
Ga. E. Co. V. Stacer, 20 Ga. App. 195, 
92 S. E. 962. 



PASSENGERS 



141 



plaintiff's intention to board or alight must be alleged in actions 
against railroads, if the place was not a regular stopping place for 
discharge of passengers,^® and in actions against street car companies 
where the car had not stopped;" but it is otherwise where the car 
stopped at the passenger's destination." A trespasser injured by a 
sudden acceleration in speed while alighting must show knowledge of 
his position by defendant's servants." 

Starting Before Passenger Has Time To Board or Alight. —If the train 
is started before a passenger has a reasonable time to board or alight, 
that fact must be shown.*" That the passenger was in danger, which 
was known to the defendant, need not be alleged, when facts from 
which such conclusion may be drawn are alleged.*^ 

Wilful and Wanton Injury. — If the jerk was wilful or wanton, the 
complaint must show that the servant or employe who caused the 
jerk was a servant of the railroad company,*^ that he was conscious 
of the danger,*^ and wilfully or wantonly inflicted the injury.^* 

(5.) Alighting From Moving Train or Car. — A passenger injured while 
boarding or alighting from a moving train must negative contributory 
negligence ;*° and show that the speed of the taain was not such as 



[b] Impossible cause set up will be 
disregarded. Eome K. & L. Co. v. 
Keel, 3 Ga. App. 769, 60 S. E. 468, 
where it was alleged the jerk was 
caused by throwing oflE the brakes, 
nothing being said about the power 
which the court assumed to be oflE un; 
der the allegations. ~ 

76. Barnwell v. Seaboard A. L. Ey. 
(Fla.), 74 So. 497 (where train stop- 
ped); Creech v. Charleston & N. C. B. 
Co., 66 S. C. 528, 45 S. E. 86, where 
train slowed down. 

77. Birmingham By. L. & P. Co. v. 
Selhorst, 165 Ala. 475, 51 So. 568 (aver- 
ment of a negligent jerking or lurching 
of a, car implies notice of plaintiff 's 
position); Public Utilities Co. v. Cos- 
by, 60 Ind. App. 252, 110 N. E. 576, 
sufficient allegation. 

78. Knuckey v. Butte Elec. E. Co., 
41 Mont! 314, 109 Pae. 979. 

79. McElvane v. Central of Georgia 
E. Co., 170 Ala. 525, 54 So. 489, 34 L. 
E. A. (N. S. )715. 

80. Mich. — McCaslin v. Lake Shore 
& M. S. By. Co., 93 Mich. 553, 53 N. W. 
724. Mo. — McKinstry v. St. Louia T. 
Co., 108 Mo. App. 12, 82 8. W. 1108, 
petition sufftcient as against objection 
after verdict. Tex. — Houston & T. C. 
E. Co. V. Hubbard (Tex. Civ. App.), 37 
S. W. 25; San Antonio & A. P. E. Co. 
V. Jackson, 38 Tex. Civ. App. 201, 85 
S. W. 445, complaint sufficient. 

[a] Unless he is In the act of alight- 
ing in view of the conductor or under 



circumstances making it his duty to 
see the passenger. Cobb v. Lin dell E. 
Co., 149 Mo. 135, 50 S. W. 310. 

[b] That the train failed to stop 
for a sufficient length of time to enable 
the plaintiff to alight is sufficient. 
Louisville & N. E. Co. v. Cornelius, 183 
Ala. 203, 62 So. 710; Western & A. B. 
Co. V. Boberts, 144 Ga. 250, 86 S. E. 
933. 

[c] That the laraln was sitarted 
while plaintiff was alighting is suffi- 
cient to admit proof that the train did 
not stop a reasonable time. Indian- 
apolis S. B. Co. V. Wall, 54 Ind. App. 
43, 101 N. E. 680. See also Knuckey 
V. Butte Elec. B. Co., 41 Mont. 314, 
109 Pac. 979. 

81. Galveston, H. & S. A. E. Co. v. 
Thornsberry (Tex.), 17 S. W. 521, nor 
need he allege his age. 

82. Birmingham By. L. & P. Co. v. 
Barrett, 4 Ala. App. 347, 58 So. 760. 
See Birmingham By. L. & P. Co. v. 
Selhorst, 165 Ala. 475, 51 So. 568. 

83. Birmingham By. L. & P. Co. v. 
Selhorst, 165 Ala. 475, 51 So. 568; Bir- 
mingham E. L. & P. Co. V. Bennett, 
144 Ala. 369, 39 So. 565; Birmingham 
By. L. & P. Co. V. Barrett, 4 Ala. App. 
347, 58 So. 760. 

84. Wlestem Ev. of Alabama ,v. 
Foshee, 183 Ala. 182, 62 So. 500; Bir- 
mingham By. L. & P. Co. V. Barrett, 
4 Ala. App. 347, 58 So. 760. 

85. Badovinac v. Northern Pae. ' B. 
Co., 39 Mont. 454, 104 Pae. 543. 

Vol. XXI 



142 



PAS8ENGEBS 



to render the danger immintfnt and obvious.** I'hat an employe in- 
viting him to alight was acting within the scope of his employment 
must be shown.*' If the plaintiff thought that the car had stopped, 
the servant's knowledge thereof must be alleged.** If a person as- 
sisting another on the train is not given sufficient time or warning 
to alight, he must allege defendant's knowledge of his presence on 
the train,*^ and a custom to give warning signals of the departure 
of trains."" 

(6.) Collision. —In alleging a collision, it is sufficient to state that 
plaintiff was a passenger and was injured through a collision with the 
train, car or other obstruction on the track.*^ 



86. Dailey v. South Covington & C. 
S. E. Co., 158 Ky. 64, 164 S. W. 361; 
Durham v. I/ouisville & N. E. E. Co., 16 
Ky. L. Rep. 757, 29 S. W. 737; Owens 
V. Atlantic C. L. E. Co., 147 N. C. 357, 
61 S. E. 198. See Pittsburgh, C. C. & 
St. L. Ry. Co. V. Gray (Ind. App.), 59 
N. E. 1000, holding complaint did not 
show contributory negligence. 

[a] That passenger believes it to 
be safe to alight is insufficient to show 
that the danger of .attempting it is not 
obvious or apparent. Dailey v. South 
Covington & G. S. E. Co., 158 Ky. 64, 
164 S. W. 361. 

[b] Sufficient i Allegations. — See 
Lake Erie & "W. E. Co. v. Huffman, 177 
Ind. 126, 97 N. E. 434, Ann. Gas. 1914 
C, 1272; Crosby v. Seaboard A. L. E. 
Co., 81 S. C. 24, 61 S. E. 1064, holding 
complaint charges wilfulness. 

87. Savannah, F. & W. Ey. Co. v. 
Wall, 96 Ga. 328, 23 S. E. 197, where 
flagman told plaintiff he could get off. 
Pittsburgh, C. G. & St. L. Ey. Co. v. 
Gray, 28 Ind. App. 588, 64 N. E. 39, 
holding it to be sufficiently shown that 
a brakeman acted within the scope of 
his duties. 

[a] Compa/T'e Wilburn v. St. Louis, 
L M. & S. Ey. Co., 36 Mo. App. 203, 
holding a complaint, alleging that the 
conductor "or some other employe of 
the defendant" ordered the passenger 
to jump, is not objectionable for fail- 
ure to show the "other employe" was 
authorized to give such direction. 

Allegations as to scope of employ- 
ment, see sitpra, II, B, 2, b, (V), (A), 
(5)4 (b). 

88. Ihdiana Union Tract. Co. v. 
Swafford, 179 Ind. 279, 100 N. E. 840, 
unless the facts alleged disclose ',a duty 
to warn the passenger of the car's mo- 
tion. 

89. Coleman v. Georgia R. Co., 84 
Ga. 1, 10 S. E. 498. 

Vol, XXI 



90. Coleman v. Georgia E. Co., 84 
Ga. 1, 10 S. B. 498. 

91. Greinke v. Chicago City R. Co., 
234 111. 564, 568, 85 N. E. 327; Rice 
V. Chicago, B. & Q. E. Co., 153 Mo. App. 
35, 53, 131 S. W. 374. See also Ala. 
Highland Ave. & B. R. Co. v. Swope, 
115 Ala. 287, 22 So. 174, complaint 
sufficient. D. C. — Washington & G. R. 
Co. V. Hickey, 5 App. Cas. 436, col- 
lision between railroad and street car 
at crossing. Ga. — Atlantic Coast Line 
R. Co. V. Adeeb, 15 Ga. App. 842, 84 
S. E. 316, complaint sufficient. 111. 
Chicago C. R. Co. t>. Pural, 224 111. 324, 
79 N. B. 686; O'Hern v. IllinoiB C. B. 
Ey., 190 111. App. 502; West Chicago 
St. E. Co. V. Mileham, 138 111. App. 
569; Chicago U. T. Co v. Mee, 136 111. 
App. 98, street car and wagon collision. 
Ind.— New York, C. & St. L. R. Co. v. 
Callahan, 40 Ind. App. 223, 81 N. E. 
670. Compare South Chicago City Ey. 
Go. V. Moltrum, 26 Ind. App. 550, 60 
N. E. 361. And see Hammond, W. & 
E. C. E. Ey. Co. v. Spyzehalski, 17 Ind. 
App. 7, 46 N. E. 47. Mo. — ^Anderson 
f. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 196 Mo. 442, 93 
S. W. 394, 113 Am. St. Rep. 748; Mal- 
loy V. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 173 Mo. 
75, 73 S. W. 159; McBadden v. Metro- 
politan St. T. E. Co., 161 Mo. App. 
652, 143 S. W. 884, where both car- 
rier* are sued. Tex. — Gulf, C. & S. F. 
Ry. Co. V. Brown, 16 Tex. Civ. App. 
93, 40 8. W. 608; Fort Worth S. R. Co. 
V. Ferguson, 9 Tex. Civ. App. 610, 29 
S. W. 61. Va.— Birckhead v. Chesa- 
peake & O. R. Co., 95 Va. 648, 29 S. E. 
678; Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Sher- 
man's Admx., 30 Gratt. (71 Va.) 602. 

[a] Need not specify In particular 
acts of negligence causing collision. 
Greinke v. Chicago City E. Co., 234 
HI. 564, 85 N. E. 327; Roscoe v. Metro- 
politan 8. R. Co., 202 Mo. 576, 101 S. 
W. 32;' Hamilton v. Metropolitan St. R. 



PASSENGERS 



143 



(7.) Derailment. — In derailment cases, the particular cause of the 
derailment may,*" but need not be," alleged, even though known to 
the passenger,** unless the servant of the carrier is joined as a party 



Co., 114 Mo. App. 504, 89 S. W. 893. 

Form of complaint for injuries in 
collision, see 9 Standard Peoc. 942, 
642. 

[b] That injury was not due to 
negligence of company on whose train 
plaintiff was a passenger need not be 
negatived where the action is brought 
against the other railroad. Pittsburgh, 
C. & St. L. E. Co. V. Spencer, 98 Ind. 
186. 

[e] Which of the two intersecting 
railroads were first built need not be 
stated to show which has the right of 
way over the crossing. Atlantic Coast 
Line R. Co. v. Adeeb, 15 Ga. App. 842, 
84 S. B. 316. ' 

[d] Where the gates of the rail- 
road company were negligently oper- 
ated, if is not necessary to make a 
specific averment that the gate Iceeper 
was the servant of the railroad com- 
pany or that it was bound to maintain 
gates, negligence being alleged gener- 
ally. Washington & Gr. E. Co. v. 
Hiekey,-5 App. Cas. (D. C.) 436. 

92. Southern E. Co. v. Adams, 52 
Ind. App. 322, 100 N. E. 773; Missouri, 
O. & G. E. Co. V. Vandivere, 42 Okla. 
427, 141 Pac. 799. 

[a] Particularity ReoLUired. — Gal- 
veston, H. & S. A. E. Co. V. Waldo, 
(Tex. Civ. App.), 26 S. W. 1004. 

[b] Repugnant Averments. — St. 
Louis & S. F. E. Co. v. Pearce, 159 Ala. 
141, 49 So. 247. 

[e] SuflS.'Cient allegations, see Gal- 
veston, H. & S. A. E. Co. V. Contreras, 
31 Tex. Civ. App. 489, 72 S. W. 1051. 
Also Ala. — Louisville & N. E. Co. v. 
Jones, 83 Ala. 376, 3 So. 902. Del. 
King V. Wilmington & N. C. Elec. E. 
Co., 1 Penne. 452, 41 " AtL 975. Ind. 
Indiana Union Tract. Co. v. McKiniiey, 
39 Ind. App. 86, 78 N. E. 203. 
Mont.— Emerson v. Butte Elec. E. Co., 
46 Mont. 454, 129 Pac. 319. 

[d] Effect of Alleging SpecMc 
Causes. — i(l) If the particular acts 
causing the derailment are set up, the 
complaint will be insuflSicient unless 
they as a matter of law constitute 
negligence, even though the complaint 
alleges negligence generally (Knight v. 
Tombigbee V. E. Co., 190 Ala. 140, 67 
So. 238), (2) although it baa been held 



I that the allegations of specific causes 
! should be treated as surplusage, so as 
! to admit proof of other causes. Hos- 
i kins V. Northern Pac. E. Co., 39 Mont. 
I 394, 102 Pac. 988, overruling Pierce v. 

Great Falls & C. Ey. Co., 22 Mont. 

445, 56 Pac. 867, so far as it confli(f^ts 

with this rule. See also II, B, 2, b, 

(V), (A), (4). 

93. U. S. — ^Bryce v. Southern E. Co., 
129 Fed. 966, 125 Fed. 958; Clark v. 
Chicago, B. & Q. E. Co., 15 Fed. 588. 
Ala. — Western Ey. of Alabama v. Mc- 
Graw, 183 Ala. 220, 62 So. 772. Ariz. 
Southern Pac. Co. v. Hogan, 13 Ariz. 
34, 108 Pac. 240, 29 L. E. A. (N. S.) 
813. Del. — King v. Wilmington & N. 
C. Elec. Ey. Co., 1 Penne. 452, 41 Atl. 
975. Fla.— Warfield v. Hepburn, 62 
Pla. 409, 57 So, 618. Ind.— Indianapo- 
lis St. Ey. Co. V. Schmidt, 163 Ind. 360, 
71 N. E. 201; Indiana Union Tract. Co. 
V. McKinney, 39 Ind. App. 86, 78 N. E. 
203. Ky.— Kentucky Cent. E. Co. v. 
McMurtry, 3 Ky. L. Eep. 625. Me. 
Hebert v. Portland E. Co., 103 Me. 315, 
69 Atl. 266, 125 Am. St. Eep. 297. 

I Minn.— Smith v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ey. 
Co., 30 Minn 169, 14 N. W. 797. Mo. 
Patterson v. Springfield T. Co. 178 Mo. 
App. 250, 163 S. W. 955. See Ellet v. 
St. Louis, K. C. & N. E. Co., 76 Mo. 
518, /holding petition sufficient as 
against objection after trial. Mont. 
Hoskins v. Northern Pac. E. Co., 39 
Mont. 394, 102 Pac. 988; Pierce v. 
Great Palls & C. Ey. Co., 22 Mont. 445, 
56 Pac. 867. Nev.— Sherman v. South- 
ern Pac. Co., 33 Nev. 385, 111 Pac. 416, 
115 Pac. 909, Ann. Cas. 1914 A, 287. 
Teiin.- Eailroad Co. v. Kuhn, 107 Tenn. 
106. 64 S. W. 202. Tex.— Gulf, C. & 
S. F. E. Co. V. Wilson, 79 Tex. 371, 15 
S. W. 280, 23 Am. St. Eep. 345, 11 L. 
E. A. 486; Gulf, C. & S. P. E. Co. v. 
Smith, 74 Tex. 276, 11 S. W. 1104. Va. 
Washington-Va. E. Co. v. Bouknight, 
113 Va. 696, 75 S. E. 1032, Ann. Cas. 
1913 E, 546. 

Form of complaint, see 9 Standard 
Proc. 942; for injury where train falls 
through bridge, see 9 Standard Pboc. 
645. 

94. San Antonio Tract. Co. v. Wil- 
liams, 34 Tex. Civ. App. 372, 78 S. W. 
977. 

Vol. XXI 



144: 



PASSENGERS 



defendant, in which event it must be stated.'" 

(s!) Jostling of Fassengersfi« — A passenger pushed from a ear or 
otherwise injured by the jostling of passengers on an overcrowded 
car need only allege the negligence of the company.'^ 

(9.) Failure To Properly Heat Cars. — In an action for injuries result- 
ing from a failure of a railroad company to heat its cars, the com- 
plaint must show whether the plaintiff was a passenger on a freight 
or passenger train,'* as well as such other facts as may be necessary 
to state a cause of action.'* 

(10.) Jumping From Cars on Appearance of Danger. — A passenger who 
jumped from a train or car on an appearance of imminent danger 
need not state all the circumstances producing the peril to which he 
was exposed.^ 

(11.) Assault 'by. Employes and Servants. — A passenger assaulted by the 
carrier's servants must allege an assault in accordance with the gen- 
eral rules.'' 



95. Bryce v. Southern E. Co., 125 
Ted. 958. 

96. Injuries while alighting fiom 
crowded car, see supra, II, B, 2, b, (V), 
(B), (3). 

97. International & G. N. R. Co. 
V. Williams, 20 Tex. Civ. App. 587, 50 
S. W. 732, need not allege acts of pas- 
sengers, although he may do so. 

[a] A count states a cause of ac- 
tion which alleges that plaintiff was a 
passenger, that he was exercising due 
care, that his position on the rear 
platform was insecure by reason of the 
crowd of passengers, that defendant 
ran its car upon a switch in such a 
way that the passengers were thrown 
against the plaintiff, whereby he was 
thrown from the platform and injured. 
Euch V. Aurora, E. & C. R. Co., 150 
111. App. 329. See also Florida E. C. 
E. Co. V. Hayes, 66 Fla. 589, 64 So. 
274, where plaintiff was thrown from 
crowded car by sudden stop. 

[b] Due Care of Passenger. — After 
verdict, the declaration will not be held 
insuflicient for a failure to allege the 
exercise of due care for his safety in 
boarding a crowded car from which he 
is later pushed or thrown. Kordick v. 
Chicago Eys. Co., 187 111. App. 74, prob- 
ably the declaration would be insuf- 
ficient as against demurrer. 

98. Atlantic Coast L. E. Co. v. Pow- 
ell, 127 Ga. 805, 56 S. E. 1006, 9 L. E. 
A. (N. S.) 709, 9 Ann. Cas. 553. 

99. Southern E. Co. v. Harrington, 
166 Ala. 630, 52 So. 57, 139 Am. St. 
Eep. 59. See Atlantic Coast L. E. Co. 
V. Powell, 127 Ga. 805, 56 S. B. 1006, 
9 L. E. A. (N. S.) 769, 9 Ann. Cas. 

Vol. XXI 



553, holding a cause of action to be 
stated. 

[a] That the person whose atten- 
tion was called to the lack of heat was 
connected with the operation of the 
train must be shown. Atlantic Coast 
L. E. Co. V. Powell, 127 Ga. 805, 56 S. 
E. 1006, 9 L. E. A. (N. S.) 769, 9 Ann. 
Cas. 553. 

1. Eldridge v. Long Island E. Co., 1 
Sandf. (N. Y.) 89. 

[a] But he must show that the ap- 
pearance was such as to impress a rea- 
sonably prudent person of the existence 
of the peril and such as to cause him 
to jump. Birmingham Ey. & Elec. Co. 
V. Butler, 135 Ala. 388, 33 So. 33. See 
Selma St. & S. Ey. Co. v. Owen, 132 
Ala. 420, 31 So. 598; Moore v. Metro- 
politan S. E. Co., 189 Mo. App. 555, 
176 S. W. 1120. 

[b] It is sufficient for him to show 
that he had reasonable cause to ap- 
prehend an accident and that the 
danger was, and that he believed it 
was imminent and impending, and that 
in consequence thereof he jumped and 
was injured. Chitty v. St. Louis, I. M. 
& S. E. Co., 148 Mo. 64, 49 S. W. 868. 

[cj Defective Appliances. — If 
plaintiff alleges that control over the 
ear is lost by reason of defective ap- 
pliances, the particular appliance must 
be specified. Newton v. Peoples E. 
Co., 4 Penne. (Del.) 350, 55 Atl. 2, hold- 
ing tliat an allegation of "insuflScient 
brakrs or other appliances ' ' to stop the 
car is too general. 

Form of complaint, see 9 Standard 
Pboc. 942, 646. 

2. See the followjing: Ala%— Bir- 



PASSENGEES 



145 



(12.) Assault and Disorderly Conduct of F<ellow Faasengers. — A complaillt 
for damages for failure to protect a passenger from the assaults of 
his fellow passengers must allege that the carrier knew or from the 
attendant circumstances should have known of the threatened injury 
in time to have averted it.' It need not allege that the assault was 
not in self defense.* Nor need vulgar language iised by fellow passen- 
gers be set' out." 

(13.) Injuries 'by Elevators. — Complaints for injuries received from 
passenger elevators must state a cause of action in accordance with 
the general rules." 

If tlie elevator drops, negligence may be alleged in general terms/ 



mingham Ry. L. & P. Co. ■». Parker, 
161 Ala. 248, 50 So. 55 (assault on 
female passenger); Lampkin v. Louis- 
ville & N. E. Co., 106 Ala 287, 17 So. 
448 (holding complaint sufficient) ;Birm- 
ingham By. L. & P. Co. v. Tate, 7 
Ala. App. 517, 61 So. 32. Ind.— Citi- 
zens' St. E. Co. V. Willoeby, 134 Ind. 
563, 33 N. B. 627 (holding complaint 
sufficient when first attacked on error. 
N. Y.— Eay v. United Traction Co., 96 
App. Div. 48, 89 N. Y. Supp. 49, com- 
plaint alleging assault but no ejection 
is a complaint for assault and battery 
only. Wash. — Casey v. Oakes, 17 
Wash. 409, 50 Pae. 53 (complaint states 
a cause of action), and generally the 
title, "Assault and Battery." 

[a] He need not sbow (1) that he 
was on the car at the time of the as- 
sault (Alabama City G. & A. E. Co. v. 
Sampley, 169 Ala. 372, 53 So. 142) ; or, 
(2) according to some authorities, that 
the servant was acting in the course 
of his employment. See supra, II, B, 
2, b, (V), (A), (5), (b), Nor (3> need 
the insulting language of the servant 
be pleaded. Houston & T. C. E. Co. 
V. Batchler, 37 Tex. Civ. App. 116, 83 
S. W. 902. 

3. Southern E. Co. v. Haynes, 186 
Ala. 60, 65 So. 339; Nashville, C. & 
St. L. Ey. 1?. Crosby, 183 Ala. 237, 62 
So. 889; Southern E. Co. v. Hanby, 183 
Ala. 255, 62 So. 871; Baltimore & O. 
E. Co. V. Eudy, 118 Md. 42, 57, 84 Atl. 
241. 

[a] Cure of Omission. — A general 
allegation that the defendant negli- 
gently failed to perform its duty to 
the plaintiff does not cure the omission 
of the allegation in the text. Southern- 
E. Co. V. Hanby, 183 Ala. 255, 62 So. 
871. Compare Holly v. Atlanta St. R. 
E., 61 6a. 215, 34 Am. Eep. 97. 

4. Culberson v, Empira Goal €o., 

10 



156 Ala. 416, 47 So. 237, matter of de- 



5. St. Louis S. W. E. Co. v. "Wright, 
33 Tex. Civ. App. 80, 75 S. W. 565. 
See the titles, "Obscenity;" "Pro- 
fanity." 

[a] Sufficient Complaint. — Sea- 
board Air Line E. Co. v. Mobley, 194 
Ala. 211, 69 So. 614. See also Hous- 
ton, E. & W. T. Ey. Co. v. Perkins, 21 
Tex. Civ. App 508, 52 S W. 124. 

6. See the title, "Negligence" and 
supra, II, B, 2, b, (V), (A). 

[a] That the elevator had stopped 
before plaintiff's decedent attempted 
to board it must be shown. Ohio Val- 
ley Tr. Co. V. Wernke, 42 Ind. App. 326, 
84 N. E. 999. 

[b] An allegation of opening of 
the door thereby inviting the passenger 
to alight is a conclusion of law. Bullock 
V. Butler Exchange Co., 22 E. I. 106, 
46 Atl. 273. See the title, "Conclu- 
sions of Law." 

[c] A complaint by a person in- 
jured by falling into an elevator shaft 
must not show the plaintiff to be guilty 
of contributory negligence. Kauffman 
V. Machin Shirt Co., 167 Cal. 506, 140 
Pae. 15 (holding complaint demur- 
rable); Tippecanoe L. & T. Co. v. Jes- 
ter, 180 Ind. 357, 101 N. E. 915, L. E. 
A. 1915 E, 721. 

[d] Sudden Starting. — Bullock v. 
Butler Exchange Co., 22 E. I. 105, 46 
Atl. 273. 

7. Champagne ■». A. Hamburger & 
Sons, 169 Cal. 683, 147 Pae. 954. 

[a] An allegation of negligence is 
sufficient which states that the fall of 
the elevator was occasioned through 
the negligence of the defendant in fail- 
ing to properly operate it. Cham- 
pagne V. A. Hamburger & Sons, 169 
Cal. 683, 147 Pae. 954. 

Vol. ZZI 



146 



PASSENGERS 



without alleging the nature of the defects causing the accident.* 
(VI.) Answer or Plea — The general rules relating to answers and 
pleas generally apply to answers in this action.* Thus, if defendant 
relies on the defense of contributory negligence, he must generally 
set it up in his answer.^" 

(VII.) Issues In accordance with the general rules,^^ a plea of 

general issue does not put in issue allegations that the defendant 
company is a corporation,'^ that it owns and controls'^ the tracks and 



8. Winheim v. Field, 107 111. App. 
, 145. See also Steiskal v. Marshall Field 

& Co., 142 111. App. 154. 

[aj Kno-wledge by the defendant 
of the defect need not be alleged. Win- 
heim V. Field, 107 111. App. 145. 

9. See infra, this not«; and gener- 
ally the titles "Answers;" "Denials;" 
"Pleas." 

[a] That plaintiff was not a pas- 
senger must be specially pleaded. At- 
lantic Coast Line E. Co. v, Crosby, 53 
Fla. 400, 434, 435, 43 So. 318. 

[b] That plaintiff rode on a free 
pass is bad as amounting to- a general 
issue. Kimball v. Boston C. & M. K. 
Co., 55 Vt. 95. 

[c] That plaintiff boarded the train 
without invitation includes both ex- 
press and implied invitations. Law- 
rence V. Kaul Lumb. Co., 171 Ala. 300, 
55 So. 111. 

[d] Defense as to lack of owner- 
ship or control over the railroad or cars 
must be specially pleaded. Pell v. 
Joliet, P. & A. K. Co., 238 111. 510, 87 
N. E. 542. 

[e] Defense that plaintiff agreed 
to assume the risk must be set up in 
the answer if the plaintiff's allega- 
tions do not show it. Pittsburgh, C. C. 
& St. L. By. Co. V. Higgs, 165 Ind. 694, 
76 N. E. 299, 4 L. E. A. (N. S.) 1081; 
Citizens' St. E. Co. v. Twiuame, 111 
Ind. 587, 13 N. E. 55; Yazoo & M. V. E. 
Co. V. Grant, 86 Miss. 565, 38 So. 502, 
109 Am. St. Eep. 723. 

[f] If defendant desires to rely 
upon the contract relating to immuni- 
ties from liability for personal injuries, 
it should be plainly alleged. Fish v. 
Delaware, L. & W. E. Co., 211 N. Y. 
374, 105 N. E. 661. 

[g] Plea setting up negligence of a 
third party without negativing the de- 
fendant's negligence and without show- 
ing it to be the sole proximate cause 
of the injury is insufficient. Western 
By. of Alabama v. McGraw, 183 Ala. 
220, 62 So. 772. 

10. See infra, this note. 

Vol. XXI 



[a] Where a perso-n on the plat- 
form is killed by a projection from a 
train, the plea must negative that he 
was standing on the platform for re- 
ception and discharge of passengers or 
charge him with knowledge of the pro- 
jection. Metcalf V. St. Louis & S. F. 
B. Co., 156 Ala. 240, 47 So. 158. 

[b] Negligent Alighting. — Dallas 
Consol. E. St. E. Co. v. Barnes (Tex. 
Civ. App.), 119 S. W. 122 

[c] A plea that plaintiff jumped 
from a moving car is defective if it 
does not allege the speed of the car, 
even if it alleges that he jumped in a 
direction opposite from that in which 
the car was moving Birmingham E. L. 
& P. Co. V. Dickerson, 154 Ala. 523, 
45 So. 659. Compare Galveston, H. & 
S. A. B. Co. V. Castillo (Tex. Civ. App.). 
83 S. W. 25. 

[d] Where a passenger falls over 
obstructions in the aisles, the plea 
must state facts showing a duty to 
look out for such obstructions. Atkin- 
son V. Dean (Ala.), 73 So. 479. 

[e] As to necessity for pleading 
the defense of contributory negligence 
and the manner thereof generally, see 
the title "Negligence." 

Negativing defense in complaint, 
see supra, II, B, 2, b, (V), (A), (6). 

11. See generally the titles "De- 
nials;" "Issues in Pleading and Prac- 
tice." 

[a] An admission that the defend- 
ant is a street railroad corporation ia 
an admission that it is a common car- 
rier of passengers. Burbridge v. Kan- 
sas City Cable E. Co., 36 Mo. App. 669, 
680. ^'^ 

12. Chicago & B. I. E. E. Co. v. 
Schmitz, 211 111. 446, 459, 71 N. E. 
1050. 

As to issues raised by general issue 
generally, see 7 Standard Proc. 66. 

13. Patterson v. Jacksonville T. Co., 
213 Fed. 289, 130 C. C. A. 13; Pell v. 
Joliet, P. & A. E. Co., 238 111. 510, 87 
N. B. 542; Chicago & E. I. E. Co. v. 



PASSENGEBS 



147 



cars, or that the operatives in charge of the train were its servants 
and employes.^* 

(VIII.) Variance and Proof. —The general rules as to variance and 
proof are applicable to actions for damages for injuries to passen- 
gers.^^ So where the plaintiff particularizes the acts of negligence, the 
proof must sustain the averments; recovery cannot be had on the 
proof of a negligent act or breach of duty not alleged as causing the 
injury complained of,^° even where the law raises a presumption of 



Schmitz, 211 111. 446, 459, 71 N. E. 
1050. 

14. McNulta V. Lockridge, 137 111. 
270, 27 N. E. 452, 31 Am. St. Rep. 362; 
Hill V. Chicago City E. Co., 126 HI. 
App. 152. 

15. See the following: TJ. S. — Wash- 
ington & G. B. Co. V. Hickey, 166 U. S. 
521, 531, 17 Sup. Ct. 661, 41 L. ed. 
1101. Ala. — ^Birmingham Ey. L. & P. 
Co. v: Glenn, 179 Ala. 263, 60 So. Ill; 
Southern E. Co. v. Melton, 158 Ala. 404, 
47 So. 1008; Louisville & N. E. E. Co. v. 
Quinn, 146 Ala. 330, 39 So. 756; Kansas 
City, M. & B. E. Co. v. Matthews, 142 
Ala. 298, 312, 39 So. 207. D. C— Wash- 
ington & G. E. Co. V. Hickey, 5 App. 
Cas. 436,- 468, immaterial variance as 
to whether passenger jumped or was 
pushed from car in the excitement. Ga. 
Gosnell v. Central of Ga. E. Co., 17 
Ga. App. 67, 86 S. E. 90 (where plain- 
tiff was not thrown off by the jerk as 
alleged, but jumped after the train 
was in motion, the variance is fatal) ; 
Pindley v. Central of Ga. E. Co., 7 Ga. 
App. 180, 66 S. E. 485, holding vari- 
ance immaterial where plaintiff alleged 
she was jerked off the car and proof 
shows she jumped to save herself from 
falling. liid.— Evansville & T. H. E. 
Co. V. Mills, 37 Ind. App. 598, 77 N. 
E. 608; Louisville, N. A. & C. E. Co. v. 
Eenicker, 8 Ind App. 404, 35 N. E. 
1047. Ky— Chicago, St. L. & N. O. 
R. Co. V. Eowell, 151 Ky. 313, 151 S. 
W. 950. Mo.— Wright v. Kansas City 
T. E. Co., 195 Mo. App. 480, 193 S. W. 
963 (immaterial variance as to wheth- 
er luggage was pushed off rack) ; John- 
son V. St. Louia & S. F. E. Co., (Mo. 
Apo.), 190 S. W. 352 (as to sudden 
jerk) ; Cornell v. Chicago, E. I. & P. R. 
Co., 143 Mo. App. 598, 128 S. W. 1021, 
variance as to whether the plaintiff 
paid his fare to a ticket agent or con- 
ductor immaterial. N. Y. — Willis v. 
Metropolitan St. E. Co., 76 App. Div. 
340, 78 N. T. Supp. 478, 33 Civ. Proc. 
199, overruling Block v. Third Ave. E. 
Co.. 60 App. Div. 191, 69 N. Y. Supp. 
J 107. Tex.— Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. 



V. Ball, 25 Tex. Civ. App. 500, 61 S. W. 
327 (variance as to refusal of per- 
mission to ride in coach provided for 
white people) ; Houston & T. C. E. Co. 
V. Moss (Tex. Civ. App.), 63 S. W. 
894. WaslhL. — Henry v. Navy Yard 
Eoute, 94 Wash. 526, 162 Pac. 584. 

See generally the title, "Variance 
and Failure of Proof." 

[a] Acts of Servants. — Powers v. 
Chicago, C. E. Co., 185 111. App. 158; 
Chicago T. T. R. Co. v. Young, 118 111. 
App. 226; Hamilton v. Metropolitan St. 
R. Co., 114 Mo. App. 504, 89 S. W. 893. 

[b] Defective Appliances. — Brod 
V. St. Louis Transit Co., 115 Mo. App. 
202, 91 S. W. 993. 

[c] Failure (1) to prove an allega- 
tion that the defendants are joint own- 
ers of the conveyance does not amount 
to a failure of proof (Frink v. Potter. 
17 111. 406; McCall v. Forsyth, 4 Watts 
& S. [Pa.] 179), unless (2) the action 
is based on the contract. Frink v. Pot- 
ter, supra. 

16. See the following: Ala. — South- 
ern R. Co. V. Hundley, 151 Ala. 378, 
44 So. 195, injury in alighting. Del. 
McAllister v. People's R. Co., 4 Penne. 
272, 54 Atl. 743. 111.— Lake St. El. 
R. Co. V. Shaw, 203 111. 39, 67 N. E 
374; Chicago, B. & N. E. Co. v. Hawk, 36 
111. App. 327. Mich.— Flint & P. M. 
E. Co. V. Stark, 38 Mich. 714. Mo. 
EoBCoe V. Metropolitan 8. R. Co., 202 
Mo. 576, 101 S. W. 32; McGrath v. St. 
Louis T. Co., 197 Mo. 97, 105, 94 S. 
W. 872; Gunn v. United Rys. Co., 177 
Mo. App. 512, 160 8. W. 540. Mont. 
Pierce v. Great Falls & C. Ry. Co., 23 
Mont. 445, 56 Pac. 867. Tex. — Norton 
r. Galveston, H. & 8. A. R. Co. (Tex; 
Civ. App.), 108 S. W. 1044. Eng.— Ma- 
yor V. Humphries, 1 Carr. & P. 251, 12 
E. C. L. 151. 

[a] Proof of the substance of the 
negligent acts set forth will be suf- 
ficient. Terre Haute & I. R. Co. v. 
Sheeks, 155 Ind. 74, 93, 56 N. E. 434. 

[b] Under a general allegation (1) 
of negligence in starting a train while 

Vol. XXI 



148 



PASSENGEBS 



negligence against the carrier," although some eases hold that the 
allegation of particular acts of negligence do not deprive the passenger 
of the right to rely on the doctrine oi\res ipsa loquitur.^** If the action 
is based solely upon a wilful or wanton tort, a recovery cannot be 
had for simple negligence,^* or vice versa.^" And it has been held 
that an averment that the defendant while acting through its servants 
wantonly and wilfully injures a passenger is not sustained by proof 
of the wanton act of the servant alone.''^ 



plaintiff is boarding or alighting, proof 
is admissible to show that the carrier 
did not stop its train a reasonable time 
to allow passengers to board or alight 
(Indianapolis S. Ei. Co. v. Wall, 54 Ind. 
App. 43, 101 N. B. 680; Lake Erie & 
W. E. Co. V. Beals, 50 Ind. App. 450, 98 
N". E. 453), or (2) that it started the 
train knowing a passenger was board- 
ing or alighting. Indianapolis S. E. 
Co. V. Wall, 54 Ind. App. 43, 101 N. E. 
680; Lake Erie & W. E. Co. v. Beals, 
50 Ind. App. 450, 98 N. B. 453. 

[c] Where it is alleged that a car 
stopped and was jerked (1) while the 
plaintiff was attempting to board or 
alight, recovery cannot be had on 
proof that the car was moving at an 
appreciable, though slow, rate of speed. 
Chicago City E. Co. v. Gates, 135 111. 
App. 180; Saeger v. Wabash E. Co., 
131 Mo. App. 282, 110 S. W. 686; Green 
V. Metropolitan S. E. Co., 122 Mo. App. 
647, 99 S. W. 28. (2) Proof that the 
speed had been reduced to an imper- 
ceptible or perfectly harmless forward 
motion constitutes an immaterial vari- 
ance. Kinyoun v. Metropolitan S. E. 
Co., 153 Mo. App. 477, 134 8. W. 15; 
Saeger v. Wabash E. Co., 131 Mo. App. 
282, 110 S. W. 686; Feagin v. Gulf, C. 
& 8. F. E. Co., 45 Tex. Civ. App. 251, 
100 8. W. 346. Contra, Walsh v. 
Nassau Elec. B. Co., 133 App. Div. 144, 
117 N. Y. Supp. 358; Goldstein v. Met- 
ropolitan St. E. Co., 49 Misc. 647, 98 
N. Y. Supp^. 862; Wiener v. Fifth Ave. 
C. Co., 164 N. Y. Supp. 667. 

[d] Under an allegation that the 
train was jerked after coming to a 
standstill, a recovery may be had 
whether the proof shows that the start- 
ing and jerking was immediately be- 
fore or after the stop. Hopkins v. 
Chicago, M. & St. P. E. Co., 128 Wis. 
403, 107 N. W. 330, the negligence is 
the jerking, the allegation as to the 
stopping is not an indispensable ele- 
ment to the cause of action. Converse, 
Cincinnati, H. & I. E. Co. v. Eevalee, 
17 Ind. App. 657, 46 N. B, 352. 

Vol. XXI 



[e] An averment that injuries were 
caused by a coUisiO'n, derailment or the 
like is not supported by proof that the 
passenger jumped to escape injury and 
was injured. McAllister v. People's 
E. Co., 4 Penne. (Del.) 272, 54 Atl. 743; 
Chitty V. St. Louis, L M. & S. E. Co., 
148 Mo. 64, 72, 49 S. W. 868. But see 
Smith V. St. Paul, M. & M. E. Co., 30 
Minn. 169, 14 N. W. 797. 

[f] Proof of being thrown on the 
platform of a car will not support an 
allegation of being thrown on the 
ground and dragged. Chicago City E. 
Co. V. Carrick, 133 111. App." 332. 

17. Fla. — Warfield v. Hepburn, 62 
Fla. 409, 57 So. 618. Ind.— Terre Haute 
& I. B. Co. V. Sheeks, 155 Ind. 74, 56 
N. E. 434; Southern E. Co. v. Adams, 
52 Ind. App. 322, 100 N. B. 773. Mo. 
Hamilton v. Metropolitan St. E. Co., 
114 Mo. App. 504, 89 S. W. 893. Tex. 
Missouri, K. & T. E. Co. v. Vance 
(Tex. Civ. App.), 41 8. W. 167; John- 
son V. Galveston, H. & N. E. Co., 27 
Tex. Civ. App. 616, 66 S. W. 906. 

EiTect of alleging particular acts of 
negligence, see supra, II, B, 2, b, (V), 
(■A-), (4). 

18. Hoskius V. Northern Pac. E. 
Co., 39 Mont. 394, 402, 102 Pac. 988, 
omrruUng Pierce v. Great Falls & C. 
By. Co., 22 Mont. 445, 56 Pac. 867 
(holding the allegations as to specific 
causes are to be considered surplusage) • 
Walters v. Seattle, B. & S. B. Co., 48 
Wash. 233, 93 Pac. 419, 24 L. B. A. 
(N. S.) 788, plaintiff need not prove 
the particular cause of the accident 
even though alleged. 

19. Ala.— Highland Ave. & B E. 
Co. V. Winn, 93 Ala. 306, 9 So. 509; 
Louisville & N. B. Co. v. Johnston, 79 
Ala. 436. Ind.— Indiana, B. & W. By. 
Co. V. Burdge, 94 Ind. 46. S. 0.— Cros- 
by V. Seaboard A. L. B. Co., 81 S. C. 
24, 61 S. E. 1064. 

20. Newberry v. AtkinBon, 184 Ala. 
567, 64 So. 46. 

21. Newberry v. Atkinson, 184 Ala. 
567, 64 So. 46, three judges dissenting 



PASSENGERS 



149 



Allegations as to the place of Injury must be proved as laid.^^ 
Proof Under General Issue or Denial. — Under a general issue, defend- 
ant may prove the injury was due to unavoidable accident,^' and may 
justify the conduct of its servant in an action for failure to protect 
a passenger from the wrongful conduct of its servant.^* Under a 
general denial, he may prove that the servants operating the train 
were not his servants, but those of a receiver 's.^^ 

(IX.) Questions of Law and Fact — (A.) Gexeeally. — Questions of law 
and fact in such actions are submitted to the court or jury, as the 
case may be, in accordance with the general rules regulating the 
province of the court and jury.^* 

(B.) Negligence. — The question of the negligence of the carrier is 
generally one for the jury in accordance with the general rules re- 
lating to questions of law and fact.''' 



— the allegation in effect charges the 
carrier with directing the act. 

22. Chicago City E. Co. v. McMeen, 
206 111. 108, 114, 68 N. E. 1093. 

[a] Immaterial variances are not 
fatal. Ala. — Birmingham Ry. L. & P. 
Co. V. Glenn, 179 Ala. 263, 60 So. Ill, 
where the venue of the offense was 
placed at East Lake and the evidence 
showed it occurred at the loop at E. L. 
and that the station designated as E. 
L. was at another place, the variance 
is immaterial. Mo. — Harriman v. Dun- 
ham (Mo. App.), 196 S. W. 443, holding 
variance immaterial where it was al- 
leged car jerked at street corner and 
Ijroof showed the jerk to have been 12 
or 15 fleet therefrom. Tex. — ^Paris 
Transit Co. v. Alexander (Tex. Civ. 
App.), 90 S. W. 1119, holding it to be 
immaterial whether a car stopped on 
one side of the street ' or the other in 
an action for injury by sudden start- 
ing while alighting. 

•23. Carlisle v. Central of Georgia 
E. Co., 183 Ala. 195, 62 So. 759. 

24. Binder v. Georgia E. & E. Co., 
13 Ga. App. 381, 79 S. E. 216, but it 
would be otherwise if the primary lia- 
bility was based on the tort of the em- 
ployee. 

25. Kansas & G. S. L. Ey. Co. v. 
Dorough, 72 Tex. 108, 10 8. "W. 711. 

26. See infra this note, and the title 
"Province of Court and Jury." 

[a] Thus (1) it is a question for 
the jury in accordance with the gen- 
eral rules regulating province of the 
court and jury, whether a person was 
invited to board a car (North Chicago 
St. E. Co. V. Williams, 140 111. 275, 29 
N. E. 672), whether (2) it is reason- 
ably necessary for a passenger to ride 



on the platform of a street car (Brunn- 
chow V. Rhode Island Co., 26 E. I. 211, 
58 Atl. 656), whether (3) a conductor 
has a reasonable time to take up tick- 
ets before the next stop (Louisville 
& N. E. Co. V. Seale, 160 Ala. 584, 49 
So. 323), and (4) whether a railroad 
company, by a long continued course 
of action, induced the public to believe 
that they are invited to board its 
trains at a place other than a regular 
station. Chicago & W. I. R. Co. v. 
Doan, 195 111. 168, 62 N. E. 826. 

[b] Place of Passenger on Freight 
Train. — Where the bill of lading au- 
thorized the shipper of goods to ride 
on the freight, but was silent as to 
where he should ride, it was for the 
jury to say whether he should have 
ridden in the caboose or the freight car. 
Pittsburgh, C. C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. 
Bijown, 178 Ind. 11, 97 N. E. 145, 98 N. 
E. 625. 

[c] Whether a given act (1) is 
within the scope of the servant's em- 
ployment is a question of law (Sny- 
der V. Hannibal & St. J. E. Co., 60 Mo. 
413; Dwinnelle v. New York C. & H. 
E. E. Co., 120 N. Y. 117, 24 N. E. 319, 
17 Am. St. Eep. 611, 8 L. R. A. 224; 
Barry v. Union Ry. Co., 105 App. Div. 
520, 94 N. Y. Supp. 449); unless (2) 
the evidence is such that more than 
one inference may be drawn with re- 
spect thereto. See generally the title 
"Master and Servant." But (3) the 
question as to the capacity in which 
the servant acts at the time of the 
wrongful act is for the jury. Phila- 
delphia, B. & W. R. Co. V. Green, 110 
Md. 32, 71 Atl. 986. 

27. See the following. U. S.— Chi- 
cago, B. & Q. R. Co. V. Schrimpf, 236 

Vol. XXI 



150 



PASSENGERS 



(C.) Contributory Negligence. — (1.) In Cneneral. —Whether a person 
is guilty of contributory negligence under the circumstances disclosed 
in a case is a question of faet.^* 

(2.) In Boarding or Alighting From Moving Car. — While it has been 
held to be contributory negligence as a matter of law to board or 
leave a moving train or street car,^^ the weight of authority is to the 
effect that such conduct does not necessarily constitute negligence per 



Fed. 200, 149 C. C. A. 390, in exposure 
of siek person. Ala. — Southern E. Co. 
V. Wooley, 158 Ala. 447, 48 So. 369 (in 
directing plaintiff into wrong car); 
Alabama G. S. R. Co. v. Gilbert, 6 Ala. 
App. 372, 60 So. 542, negligence as to 
speed of train. Ark. — Eobinson v. Lit- 
tle Rock E. & E. Co., 113 Ark. 227, 168 
S. *W. 1125, where passenger was thrown 
from oar going round a curve. 111. 
Pell V. Joliet, P. & A. E. Co., 238 111. 
510, 87 N". E. 542 (failing to put bars 
on windows) ; Ward v. Chicago & N. 
W. Ry. Co., 165 111. 462, 46 N. E. 365. 
Ind.— Pittsburgh, C. & St. L. E. Co. v. 
Spencer, 98 Ind. 186. Mo. — Wright v. 
Kansas City T. E. Co., 195 Mo. App. 
480, 193 S. W. 963 (as to luggage 
racks); Cramer v. Springfield T. Co., 
112 Mo. App. 350, 87 S. W. 24, in start- 
ing the car. S. C. — Madden v. Port 
Eoyal & W. C. Ry. Co., 35 S. C. 381, 
14 S. E. 713, 28 Am. St. Eep. 855. Tex. 
Stewart v.' International & G. N. E. 
Co., 53 Tex. 289, 37 Am. Eep. 753, neg- 
ligence in failure to provide lights at 
depot. Wis.— Pool v. Chicago, M. & St. 
P. Ey. Co., 56 Wis. 227, 14 N. W. 46. 

See generally the titles, "Negli. 
gence;" "Province of Judge and 
Jury." 

[a] Notice of Arrival at Destina- 
tion. — Whether it is negligence for 
the defendant's servant to omit to 
keep a promise to give a passenger 
notice of arrival of a train at his des- 
tination is for the jury. Missouri, K. 
& T. E. Co. V. Miller, 20 Tex. Civ. App. 
570, 50 S. W. 168. 

28. TJ. S.— Chesapeake & O. E. Co. 
V. King, 99 Fed. 251, 40 O. C. A. 432, 
49 L. R. A. 102, in failing to look for 
trains before crossing track. Oal. — Hille- 
brand v. Standard Biscuit Co., 139 Cal. 
233, 73 Pae. 163; Nilson v. Oakland 
Traction Co., 10 Cal. App. 103, 101 Pac. 
413, 21 Am. ISTeg. Eep. 566. Ind In- 
diana Union Tract. Co. v. Jacobs, 167 
Ind. 85, 78 N. E. 325 (in alighting at 
unsafe place in the dark); Citizens' 
St. Ry. Co. V. Jolly, 161 Ind. 80, 67 
N. E. 935; Lake Brie & W. E. Co. v. 

Vol. ZXI 



Cotton, 45 Ind. App. 580, 91 N. E. 253. 
la. — Burger v. Omaha & C. B. S. E. Co., 
139 Iowa 645, 117 N. W. 35, 130 Am. 
St. Eep. 343. Mo. — Allen v. St. Louis 
Transit Co., 183 Mo. 411, 81 S. W. 1142; 
Leslie v. Wabash, St. L. & P. Ey. Co., 
88 Mo. 50; Scott v. Metropolitan S. E. 
Co., 138 Mo. App. 196, 120 S. W. 131. 
Pa. — Goehring v. Beaver Val. Tract. 
Co., 222 Pa. 600, 72 Atl. 259, where 
plaintiff stood on platform of derailed 
car. Wash. — .Elliott v. Seattle, R. & 
S. R. Co., 68 Wash. 129, 122 Pac. 614, 
39 L. R. A. (N. S.) 608, alighting on 
wrong side of car. 

See generally the titles, "Negli- 
gence;" "Province of Judge and 
Jury.' ' 

[a] Unless the evidence is such that 
but one reasonable Inference can be 
drawn therefrom. Pittsburgh, C. C. & 
St. L. Ry. Co. V. Klitch, 11 Ind. App. 
290, 37 N. E. 560. 

Tb] Negligence in Moving About 
Coach. — Louisville & N. E. Co. v. Ash- 
ley, 169 Ky. 330, 183 S. W. 921. 

29. Ore — Armstrong v. Portland E. 
Co., 52 Ore. 437, 97 Pae. 715. Pa. 
Quinn v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit 
Co., 224 Pa. 162, 73 Atl. 319; Boulfrois 
V. United Traction Co., 210 Pa. 263, 59 
Atl. 1007, 105 Am. St. Rep. 809, 2 Am. 
& Eng. Ann. Cas. 938; Hunterson v. 
Union Traction Co., 205 Pa. 568, 55 
Atl. 543; NefP v. Harrisburg T. Co., 
192 Pa. 501, 43 Atl. 1020, 73 Am. St. 
Rep. 825; Victor v. Pennsylvania R. 
Co., 164 Pa. 195, 30 Atl. 381; New 
York, L. E. & W. E. Co. v. Enches, 
127 Pa. 316, 17 Atl. 991. Tenn.— Knox- 
ville Traction Co. v. Carroll, 113 Tenn. 
514, 82 S. W. 313, to step from a mov- 
ing car, without invitation from the 
carrier before it reaches its stopping 
point is negligence. 

[a] There are some rare exceptions 
to this rule. But an exception does 
not exist where a motorman heeds a 
signal to stop, and an intending pas- 
senger knowing such fact by the slack- 
ened speed boards a car running three 
or four miles an hour. Hunterson v, 



Passengers 



ISI 



se,'" but that it is a question of mixed law and fact whether the 
passenger is negligent in a particular case.^^ Generally the question 
is for the jury.'" But where there are exceptional circumstances at- 
tending the attempt to board or alight which render the attempt ob- 



Union Traction Co., 205 Pa. 568, 55 
Atl. 543. 

30. V. S. — ^Puget Sound E. Ey. v. 
Felt, 181 Fed. 938, 104 C. C. A. 402. 
Ala. — ^Birmingham Ey. L. & P. Co. v. 
Jung, 161 Ala. 461, 49 So. 434; Birm- 
ingham E. L. & P. Co. V. Diekerson, 
154 Ala. 523, 45 So. 659; Watkins v. 
Birmingham Ey. & Elee. Co., 120 Ala. 
147, 24 So. 392, 43 L. E. A. 297. D. C. 
Brown v. Washington & G. E. Co., 11 
App. Cas. 37. N. Y. — ^Lobsenz v. 
Metropolitan St. Ey. Co., 72 App. Div. 
181, 76 'N. Y. Supp. 411, street car case. 
Va.— Newport News & O. P. E. & E. Co. 
17. McCormick, 106 Va. 517, 56 S. E. 
281. 

Compare Eichmond T. Co. v. Wil- 
liams, 102 Va. 253, 46 S. E. 292. 

31. Newport News & O. P. E. & 
E. Co. V. McCormick, 106 Va. 517", 56 
S. E. 281. 

32. Ala. — Birmingham E. L. & P. 
Co. V. Lee, 153 Ala. 79, 45 So. 292; 
Kansas City, M. & B. K. Co. v. Matt- 
hews, 142 Ala. 298, 39 So. 207; Sweet 
«. Birmingham E. & El«c. Co., 136 Ala. 
166, 33 So. 886. Cal.— Finkeldey i>. 
Omnibus C. Co., 114 Cal. 28, 45 Pac. 
996; Nilson v. Oakland Traction Co., 
10 Cal. App. 103, 101 Pac. 413, 21 Am. 
Neg. Eep. 566. Colo. — Posten v. Den- 
ver Consol. T. Co., 11 Colo. App. 187, 
53 Pac. 391. Del. — Betts «. Wilming- 
ton dty E. Co., 3 Penne. 448, 53 Atl. 
358, HI. — Chicago U. T. Co. v. Lun- 
dahl, 215 HI. 289, 74 N. E. 155; Cieero 
& P. S. E. Co. V. Meixner, 160 111. 320, 
43 N., E. 823, 31 L. E. A. 331. Ind. 
Indianapolis St. Ey. Co. v. Hockett, 159 
Ind. 677, 66 N. E. 39; Crump v. Davis, 
33 Ind. App. 88, 70 N. B. 886. Ia» 
Boot V. Des Moines City Ey. Co., 113 
Iowa 675, 83 N. W. 904. Ky.— Ford v. 
Paducah C. Ey., 29 Ky. L. Eep. 752, 96 
S. W. 441. I*.— Jones v. Canal & C. 
E. Co., 109 La. 213, 33 So. 200. Md. 
United Eys. & Elec. Co. v. Eosik, 107 
Md. 138, 68 Atl. 511; New York P. & 
N. E. Co. V. Coulbourn, 69 Md. 360, 16 
AtL 208, 9 Am. St. Eep. 430, 1 L. E. A. 
541. JMass. — Payne v. Springfield St. 
E. Co., 203 Mass 425, 89 N. E. 536; 
Block V. Worcester, 186 Mass. 526, 72 
N. E. 77; McDonough v. Metropolitan 



E. Co., 137 Mass. 210. Mich,.— Burke 
V. Bay City T. & E. Co., 147 Mifeh. IV 2, 
110 N. W. 524. Minn.— Cody v. Duluth 
S. E. Co., 94 Minn. 74,, 102 N. W. 201, 
397; Schacherl v. St. Paul City Ey. Co., 
42 Minn. 42, 43 N. W. 837, horse car. 
Mo.— Green v. Metropolitan S. E. Co., 
122 Mo. App. 647, 99 S. W. 28; Spen- 
cer V. St. Louis T. Co., Ill Mo. App. 
653, 86 S. W. 593 (speed of a fast 
walk); O'Mara v. St. Louis T. Co., 102 
Mo. App. 202, 76 S. W. 680, where car 
was going three or four miles per hour. 
Neb. — Omaha St. Ey. Co. v. Craig, 39 
Neb. 601, 58 N. W. 209. N. J.— Mur- 
phv V. North Jersey St. E. Co., 71 N. 
J. L. 5, 58 Atl. 1018; New Jersey T. 
Co. V. Gardner, 60 N. J. L. 571, 38 Atl. 
669. N. Y. — Morrison v. Broadwav & 
S. A. E. Co., 130 N. Y. 166, 29 N. E. 
105 (where plaintiff was seventy years 
of age) ; Eppendorf v. Brooklyn C. & 
N. E. Co., 69 N. Y. 195, 25 Am. Eep. 
171, street car. Ohio. — Ashtabula 
Rapid Transit Co. v. Holmes, 67 Ohio 
St. 153, 65 N. B. 877. R. I.— Eath- 
bone V. Union E. Co., 13 E. I. 709. S. C. 
Norton v. Columbia S. E. L. & P. Co., 
83 S. 0. 26, 64 S. E. 962; Creech v. 
Charleston & W. C. Ey., 66 S. C. 528, 
45 S. E. 86. Tex.— Dallas E. T. Co. v. 
Payne, 98 Tex. 211, 82 S. W. 649; Kan- 
sas & G. S. L. Ey. Co. v. Dorough, 72 
Tex. 108, 10 S. W. 711. Utah.— Paul 
V. Salt Lake C. E. Co., 30 Utah 41, 83 
Pac. 563. Wash. — Brown v. Seattle 
City Ey. Co., 16 Wash. 465, 47 Pac. 890. 

[a] Negligence in boarding a slow- 
ly moving train is for the jury. Bir- 
mingham E. L. & P. Co. V. Lee, 153 
Ala. 79^ 45 So. 292; Birmingham Ry., 
L. & P. Co. V. Willis, 143 Ala. 220, 38 
So. 1016. 

[b] Where Passenger Is a Woman, 
la. — Eoot V. Des Moines City Ey. Co., 
113 Iowa 675, 83 N. W. 904. Md.— Cen- 
tral Ey. Co. V. Smith, 74 Md. 212, 21 
Atl. 706. Mo. — Duncan v. Wyatt Park 
E. Co., 48 Mo. App. 659; Fortune v. 
Missouri E. Co., 10 Mo. App. 252. N. Y. 
Conley v. Forty-Second St. M. & St. N. 
A. E. Co., 24 Jones & S. 607, 2 N. Y. 
Supp. 229. E. I.— Eathbone v. Union 
E. Co., 13 E. I. 709. 

[c] Where Motion Is Sole Cause of 



Vol. XXI 



152 



PASSENGERS 



viously dangerous, contributory neglig&nce is a matter of law.'' 
Some eases apply different rules to cases of steam railroads and street 
cars;'* but others do not.'° 

(3.) In Exposing Body Beyond Side of Car. — It has generally been 
held to be a question for the jury whether a passenger on a street 
car is guilty of negligence in exposing portions of his body beyond 
the side of the car, while in motion.'® 'the same has been held to be 



Injury. — Murphy v. North Jersey St. 
E. Co., 71 N. J. L. 5, 58 Atl. 1018; 
Schmidt v. North Jersey St. Ry. Co., 
66 N. J. L. 424, 49 Atl. 438. See also 
Dockham v. North Jersey S. E. Co. 
(N. J. L.), 66 Atl. 961. 

33. Ala. — Birmingham E. L. & P. 
Co. V. Dickerson, 154 Ala. 523, 45 So. 
659; Hunter v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 
150 Ala. 594, 43 So. 802, 9 L. E. A. 
(N. S.) 848; "Watkins v. Birmingham 
By. & Blec. Co., 120 Ala. 147, 150, 24 
So. 392, 43 L. E. A. 297. Oolo.— Pos- 
ten V. Denver Oonsol. T. Co., 11 Colo. 
App. 187, 53 Pac. 391. Del. — Betts v. 
Wilmington City E. Co., 3 Penne. 448, 
53 Atl. 358. Mo. — Joyce v. Metropoli- 
tan St. R. Co., 219 Mo. 344, 118 S. W. 
21, where there was an obstruction in 
plain view close to the car. N. Y. 
Reidy v. Metropolitan St. By. Co., 27 
Misc. 527, 58 N. Y. Supp. 326. E. I. 
Lee V. Ehode Island Co., 68 Atl. 475, 
where plaintiff pursued street car after 
it started. Tex. — See Lewis v. Houston 
Elee. Co., 39 Tex. Civ. App. 625, 88 S. 
W. 489, 112 S. "W. 593. 

[a] These circumstances may be (1) 
the great speed of the trfl,in (Ala.— Hun- 
ter V. Louisville & N. E. Co., 150 Ala. 
594, 43 So. 802, 9 L. E. A. (N. S.) 848 
(train running from 6 to 10 miles per 
hour); Birmingham Ey., L. & P. Co. 
V. Glover, 142 Ala. 492, 38 So. 836 (get- 
ting off backwards, train going five or 
six miles per hour); Watkins v. Bir- 
mingham E. & E. Co., 120 Ala. 147, 
152, 24 So. 392, 43 L. R. A. 297. Colo! 
Denver Tramway Co. v. Owens, 20 Colo. 
107, 36 Pac. 848, eleven miles per hour. 
Ga — Masterson v. Macon City & S St 
R. Co., 88 Ga. 436, 14 S. E. 591, twenty 
miles per hour. Mo. — O'Mara v. St 
Louis T. Co., 102 Mo. 202, 76 S. W. 680. 
W. Va. — Hoylmau v. Kanawha & M R 
Co., 65 W. Va. 264, 64 S. E. 536, 22 L. 
R. A. (N. S.) 741, eight to ten miles. 
Wis.— FoBnes v. Duluth S. R. Co, I40 
Wis. 455, 122 N. W. 1054, 30 L. E. A. 
CN. S.) 270, where foreigner alighted 
from ear going six miles per hour), (2) 
the age or infirmity of the passenger 
Vol, XXI 



(Watkins v. Birmingham Ey. & Elec. 
Co., 120 Ala. 147, 24 So. 392, 43 L. E. 
A. 297; O'Mara v. St. Louis T. Co., 102 
Mo. App. 202, 76 S. W. 680), or (3) his 
being incumbered with bundles or chil- 
dren. Hunter v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 
150 Ala. 594, 43 So. 802, 9 L. R. A. (N. 
S.) 848; Eicketts v. Birmingham St. 
Ey. Co., 85 Ala. 600, 604, 5 So. 353 
(where passenger had keg of lead); 
O'Mara v. St. Louis T. Co., 102 Mo. 
App. 202, 76 S. W. 680, where car had 
passed crossing and the servants were 
unaware of plaintiff's attempt. See 
to similar effect, Ebling v. Second Ave. 
E. Co., 60 App. Div. 616, 69 N. Y. Supp. 
1102. ^ 

34. Lobsenz v. Metropolitan St. Ey. 
Co., 72 App. Div. 181, 76 N. Y. Supp. 
411, holding an instruction that it is 
negligent to board a moving public ve- 
hicle is applicable to steam railroads 
but not to street cars. 

35. Hunterson v. Union Traction 
Co., 205 Pa. 568, 55 Atl. 543; Powelson 
V. United Traction Co., 204 Pa. 474. 54 
Atl. 282. ' 

36. U. S. — New Orleans & C. E. Co. 
V. Schneider, 60 Fed. 210, 8 C. C. A. 
571; Schneider v. New Orleans & C. E. 
R., 54 Fed. 466. D. C— Georgetown & 
T. R. Co. V. Smith, 25 App. Cas. 259, 
5 L. R. A. (N. S.) 274. HI.— Pell v. 
Johet, P. & A. E. Co., 238 111. 510, 87 
N. E. 542, interurban car. Kan. — Cum- 
mings V. Wichita E. & L. Co., 68 Kan. 
218, 74 Pac. 1104. La.— Summers v. 
Crescont City E. Co., 34 La. Ann. 139, 
44 Am. Eep. 419. IHijm.— Dahlberg v. 
Minneapolis St. E. Co., 32 Minn. 404. 
21 N. W. 545, 50 Am. Eep. 585. Mo! 
Millerj;. St. .Louis R. Co., 5 Mo. App. 
il^\ ^- ^-.-Tucker v. Buffalo Ry. Co , 
53 App. Div. 571, 65 N. Y. Supp. 989! 

[a] But extending head out of car 
aDove screens is contributory negli- 
gence as a matter of law. Christensen 
V. Metropolitan S. R. Co., 137 Fe'd 

I 708. 70 0. C, A. 657. 

[b] A passeoger who puts bis head 



PASSENGERS 



153 



true of passengers on railroads,^^ though there are authorities to the 
contrary.^* But where the evidence is disputed, it is for the jury- 
to determine how the plaintiff's body came to be exposed.'"' 

c. Actions for Ejection of Passengers and Trespassers. — (!■) Form 
of Action. - Where a passenger, having a valid contract of transporta- 
tion, is wrongfully ejected from the train, he has a remedy either" 
by an action on the contract,*" or in tort.*^ 

Whether Trespass or Case. — If the ejection would be lawful if done 
in a lawful manner, but becomes unlawful because of the unlawful 



eight inches out of a street car win- 
dow and. is injured by striking a pole 
is guilty of negligence as a matter of 
law. Moore v. Edison Elee. I. Co., 43 
La. Ann. 792, 9 So. 433. 
37. La. — Clerc v. Morgan's L. & T. 

B. Co., 107 La. 370, 31 So. 886, 90 Am. 
St. Kep. 319; Kird v. New Orleans & 
N. W: E. Co., ,105 La. 226, 29 So. 729. 
N. Y. — Francis v. New York Steam Co., 
114 N. Y. 380, 21 N. E. 988 (a general 
rule cannot be laid down for all cases) ; 
Holbrook v. Utica & S. R. Co., 16 Barb. 
113, affirmed, 12 N. Y. 236, 244, 64 Am. 
Dec. 502. See also Breen v. New York 
Cent. & H. E. E. Co., 109 N. Y. 297, 16 
N. E. 60, 4 Am. St. Eep. 450. S. C. 
Quinn v. South Carolina E. Co., 29 S. 

C. 381, 7 S. E. 614, 1 L. E. A. 682. Tex. 
Gulf, C. & S. F. E. Co. V. Phillips, 32 
Tex. Civ. App. 238, 74 S. W. 793. 
Wis. — Spencer v. Milwaukee & P. du C. 
E. Co., 17 Wis. 487, 84 Am. Dec. 758. 

38. Ala. — Georgia P. E. Co. v. Un- 
derwood, 90 Ala. 49, 8 So. 116, 24 Am. 
St. Eep. 756. Ind. — ^Indianapolis & C. 
E. Co. V. Eutherford, 29 Ind. 82, 92 Am. 
Dec. 336. Ky. — Louisville & N. E. Co. 
V. Sicklings, 5 Bush 1, 96 Am. Dec. 
320; Morel v. Mississippi Val. Life Ins. 
Co., 4 Bush 535. Md.— Pittsburgh & C. 
E. Co. V. Andrews, 39 Md. 329, 17 Am. 
Eep. 568. Mass. — Todd v. Old Colony 
& F. E. E. Co., 3 Allen 18, 80 Am. Dec. 
49. Mo. — Barton v. St. Louis & I. M. 
E. Co., 52 Mo. 253, 14 Am. Eep. 418. 
Pa.— Pittsburgh' & C. E. Co. v. Mc- 
Clurg, 56 Pa. 294. Va. — Eiehmond & 

D. E. Co. V. Scott, 88 Va. 958, 14 S. B. 
763, 16 L. E. A. 91; Dun v. Seaboard & 

E. E. Co., 78 Va. 645, 49 Am. Eep. 388. 

39. North Baltimore Pass. Ey. Co. 
V. Kaskell, 78 Md. 517, 28 Atl. 410; 
Pittsburg, & C. E. Co. v. Andrews, 39 
Md. 329, 353, 17 Am. Eep. 568. 

40. U. S.— Pittsburgh, C. C. & St. 
L. Ey. Co. V. Euss, 57 Fed. 822, 6 C. C. 
A. 597. Cai. — Sloane v. Southern Cal. 
By. Co., Ill Cal. 668, 44 Pac. 320, 32 



If. E. A. 193; Delmonte v. Southern 
Pac. Co., 2 Cal. App. 211, 83 Pac. 269. 
Ga.— Georgia S. & F. E. Co. v. Pearson, 
120 Ga. 284, 47 S. E. 904; Sutton v. 
Southern Ey. Co., 101 Ga. 776, 29 S. E. 
53; Central E. & Bkg. Co, v. Eoberts, 91 
Ga. 513, 18 8. E. 315. Neb.— Chicago, 
B. & Q. E. Co. V. Spirk, 51 Neb. 167, 
70 N. W. 926. N. Y.— Brown v. Brook- 
lyn, Q. C. & S. E. Co., 136 App. Div. 
690 121 N. Y. Supp. 445. W. Va.— Boa- 
ter V. Chesapeake & O. Ey. Co., 36 W 
Va. 318, 15 S. E. 158. 

Where passenger is given improper 
ticket, see supra, II, B, 2, a, (I). 

41. V. S.— Pittsburgh, C. C. & St. L. 
Ey. Co. V. Euss, 57 Fed. 822, 6 C. C. A. 
597. Cal. — Sloane v. Southern Cal. Ey 
Co., Ill Cal. 668, 44 Pac. 320, 32 L. e! 
A. 193; Gorman v. Southern Pac. Co, 
97 Cal. 1, Si Pac. 1112, 33 Am. St. Eep! 
157. Ga.— King v. Southern E. Co., 128 
Ga. 285, 57 S. E..507; Georgia S. & P. 
?A. J-,--^®^''^°"' ^20 Ga. 284, 47 S. E. 
1°!-, Neb -Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. 
Spirk, 51 Neb. 167, 70 N. W. 926. N. J 

?T®T? ''^„^°^*^ J«''««y St. E. Co:, 69 
N. J. L. 230, 54 Atl. 799. Wash.— cLey 
V. Cakes, 17 Wash. 409, 50 Pac. 53, hold- 
ing action to be founded in tort. W. Va 
Boster v. Chesapeake & O. Ey Co 36 
W. Va. 318, 15 S. E. 158; l^cKa^ v 

fq? s'a A.f • ®*^ ^^P- ^^3, 9 L. E. A. 
132, 8 Am. Neg. Cas. 662. 

[a J Until person ejected proves ob- 
ligation to carry him, his remedy in 
conhned to an action for battery in us- 
ing excessive force in ejecting him. 
Brown t;. Brooklyn, Q. C. & S. E. Co., 

vv^^^.S'^- ^^^' 121 N. Y. Supp. 445: 
[b] Where plaintiff fails to have his 
ticket validated before his return, there 
13 no contract in force and if the 
plaintiff is ejected he cannot recover 
in an action of assumpsit for breach 
of contract. Boylan v. Hot Springs E. 

E"ed 290.- ^- "'' " ^"P- ^'- ''' 33 



Vol. XXI 



154 



PASSENGERS 



way in which it is done, case is the proper remedy;*^ and if a re- 
covery for remote or consequential damages is sought, case must be 
brought;*^ but if the ejection is unlawful in itself and not from the 
mode of doing it, trespass will lie.** Many statutes, however,' have 
abolished the distinction between actions of trespass and trespass on 
the case.*^ 

(II.)' Venu«.46 _ Statutes sometimes require that railroad com- 
panies be sued in the county where the cause of action originated.*^ 

(III.) Paxties.48 — In an action in tort for wrongful expulsion of a 
person from a train or station, all persons connected with the wrongful 
act may be joined as defendants.** 

(IV.) Declaration or Coinplamt.60 — (A.) In General. — The declaration 
or complaint in an action ex delicto for wrongful ejection must state 
a cause of action in conformity to general rules governing such 
pleadings.^^ 



42. U. S.— Emigh v. Pittsburgh, T. 
W. & C. B. Co., 4 Bisa. 114, 8 Ted. Cas. 
No. 4,449. m.— St. Louis & C. K. Co. 
V. Dalby,. 19 111. 353, 375; Chicago & E. 
I. E. Co. V. Casazza, 83 111. App. 421. 
W. Va. — See Boster v. Chesapeake & 
O. Ey. Co., 36 "W. Va. 318, 15 S. E. 158. 

43. Barnum v. Baltimore & O. E. 
Co., 5 W. Va. 10. 

44. St. Louis, A. & C. E. Co. v. 
Dalby, 19 111. 353, 375, followed in Chi- 
cago & N. W. E. Co. V. Peacock, 48 HI. 
253; Adams v. Union E. Co., 21 E. I. 
134, 42 Atl. 515, 44 L. E. A. 273. See 
also 4 Standard/ Peoc. 627. 

45. See Chicago Union T. Co. v. 
Brethauer, 125 111. App. 204, and 4 
Standard Proc. 616. 

46. See generally the title "Venue." 

47. See the statutes. 

[a] A cause of action in tort for 
'wrongful ejection, is deemed, to orig- 
inate where the wrongful ejection took 
place, and not in the county where the 
agent of the carrier issued an imper- 
fect or improper ticket. Georgia S. & 
P. E. Co. V. Pearson, 120 Ga. 284, 47 
S. E. 904. 

Where action is based on contract, 
see supra, II, B, 1. 

48. See generally the title "Pax- 
ties." 

49. Whiteaker v. Chicago, E. I. & 
P. E. Co., 252 Mo. 438, 160 S. W. 1009 
(where railroad company and conduc- 
tor are joined); Casey v. Oakea, 17 
Wash. 409, 50 Pac. 53, where servant 
who committed the assault, receiver 
and the railroad company were joined. 

fa] Where two railroad companies 
jointly provide and use a waiting room 
at a junction, an action for wrongful 

Vol. XXI 



ejection therefrom may be brought 
against both companies. Eiley v. 
Wrightsville & T. E. Co., 133 Ga. 413, 
65 S. B. 890, 24 L. E. A. (N. S.) 379, 
18 Ann. Cas. 208. 

50. See generally the title "Declar- 
ation and Complaint." 

51. See cases cited infra, this note, 
[a] For cases holding a cause of 

action to be sufficiently stated, see the 
following: Ala. — Central of Georgia E. 
Co. V. Bagley, 173 Ala. 611, 55 So. 894; 
Nashville, C. & St. L. Ey. v. Bates, 133 
Ala. 447, 32 So. 589; Birmingham E. 
L. & P. Co. V. Smith, 14 Ala. App. 264, 
69 So. 910, ejection from street railway 
for transferring at wrong place. Cal. 
Sloane v. Southern Cal. Ey. Co., Ill 
Cal. 668, 684, 44 Pac. 320, 32 L. E. A. 
193, where conductor took up plain- 
tiff's ticket without giving him evi- 
dence thereof so that plaintiff was 
ejected after transferring to another 
train. Ga. — Georgia E. & B. Co. v. 
Murden, 83 Ga. 753, 10 S. E. 364, where 
conductor demanded extra fare, no tick- 
et having been purchased. Ind. — Citi- 
zens' St. E. Co. V. Willoeby, 134 Ind. 
563, 33 N. E. 627; Pittsburgh, C. C. & 
St. L. E. Co. V. Haislup, 39 Ind. App. 
394, 79 N. E. 1035. Neb.— Chicago, B. 
& Q. E. Co. V. Spirk, 51 Neb. 167, 70 
N. W. 926. N. C— Knowles v. Norfolk 
S. E. Co., 102 N. C. 59, 9 S. E. 7, where 
plaintiff was ejected despite tender of 
fare. Tex.— Galveston, H. ■& S. A. E. 
Co. V. Short (Tex. Civ. App.), 163 S. 
W. 601. Wash.— Casey v. Oakes, 17 
Wash. 409, 50 Pac. 53. W. Va.— White 
V. Chesapeake & O. E. Co., 26 W. Va. 
800, where conductor demanded exces- 
sive fare. 



PASSENGERS 



165 



(B.) Paeticular Allegations. — (1.) Plaintif's Bight To Be on Train or 
Car. — (a.) In General. —A person wrongfully ejected from a train 
or ear must show the relationship of carrier and passenger/^ and that 
he was rightfully on such train or car,""^ unless unnecessary force is 
relied upon.'* 

(b.) Tendering Ticket or Fare. — In showing his right to be on the 
train or car, plaintiff must allege that he exhibited and tendered 
his ticket to the conductor,^' or that he tendered such a sum as the 
defendant was entitled to charge.^^ But such allegations are not re- 
quired where the gravamen of the action is violent and malicious ex- 
pulsion from a train."^ If the passenger objects to the payment of 



Form of complaint, see 9 Standard . 
Pboc. 943. I 

52. Pennsylvania Co. v. Dean, 92 
Ind. 459. See also Ala. — McGhee v. i 
Cashin, 130 Ala. 561, 30 So. 367. Fla. 
Seaboard Air Line E. Co. v. Scarbor- | 
ough, 52 Pla. 425, 42 So. 706, holding 
allegation sufficient. Ind. — Ohio & M. 
By. Co. V. Croucher, 132 Ind. 275, 31 N. 
E. 941, holding a,llegation sufficient. 

As to manner of alleging relation- 
sMp of carrier and passenger, see supra, 
II, A, 1, a. 

53. White v. EvansvUle & T. H. E. 
Co., 133 Ind. 480, 33 N. B. 273; Bar- 
num V. Baltimore & O. E. Co., 5 W. 
Va. 10. 

[a] In an action against a street 
raQway the plaintiff need not show 
that he boarded the car at such a time 
and place as would entitle him to pas- 
sage on the transfer presented, unless 
he sets out the transfer in full and it 
discloses a stipulation as to the time 
and place of transferring. Birming- 
ham Ey., L. & P. Co. V. Smith, 14 Ala. 
App. 264, 69 So. 910. 

[b] Under a statute authorizing 
certain persons to ride on trains where 
such trains stop, it is sufficient to al- | 
lege that the train stopped on the day 
in question without showing that it 
regularly stops there. Allen v. Lake ' 
Shore & M. S. Ey. Co., 57 Ohio St. 79, 
47 N. E. 1037. 1 

Aa to compliance with conditions in 
tickets, see infra, II, B, 3, d, (11), (A), 
(4). I 

54. Adams v. St. Louis & S. F. E. 
Co., 149 Mo. App. 278, 130 S. W. 48. 
See also Terre Haute & I. E. Co. v. 
Fitzgerald, 47 Ind. 79; Mykleby v. Chi- 
cago, St, P., M. & O. Ey. Co., 39 Minn. 
54, 38 N. W. 763. i 

[a] Need Not Show Whether Pas- 1 
senger or Freight Train. — Wabash E. 



Co. •!;. Savage, 110 Ind. 156, 9 N. E. 85. 
[b] Time train departed from the 
station, when plaintiff entered, need 
not be alleged. Wabash E. Co. v. Sav- 
age, 110 Ind. 156, 9 N. E. 85. 

55. White v. Bvansville & T. H. E. 
Co., 133 lud. 480, 33 N. E. 273, mere 
allegation that plaintiff purchased 
ticket is not sufficient. 

56. Cal.— Tarbell v. Central Pac. E. 
Co., 34 Cal. 616. Ga.— Wilson v. South- 
ern E. Co., 143 Ga. 189, 84 S. E. 445. 
Ind.— Scott V. Cleveland, C. C. & St. 
L. Ey. Co., 144 Ind. 125, 43 N. E. 133, 
32 L. E. A. 154; White v. Evansville & 
T. H. E. Co., 133 Ind. 480, 33 N. E. 
273. N. C— Knowles v. Norfolk S. E. 
Co., 102 N. C. 59, 9 S. E. 7, holding 
tender to be sufficiently pleaded. W. 
Va. — White v. Chesapeake & 0. Ey. Co., 
26 W. Va. 800. 

[a] Illustrations. — An allegation 
that plaintiff tendered to defendant's 
servants payment in full for his pas- 
sage i's sufficient, without alleging the 
amount, or that the particular servant 
to whom the offer was made was the 
conductor in charge of the train. Tar- 
bell V. Central Pac. E. Co., 34 Cal. 616. 
See also Avery v. Atchison, T. & S. F. 
E. Co., 11 Kan. 448. 

[b] A complaint charging a de- 
mand of more than the regular fare 
must show the amount demanded is 
illegal or that it is not the fare when 
cash instead of a ticket is tendered. 
Allison V. Georgia E. & B. Co., 132 Ga. 
834, 65 S. E. 85. 

[c] A strictly legal tender need not 
be alleged. Tarbell v. Central P. E. 
Co., 34 Cal. 616, where plaintiff offered 
fare in legal tender notes. 

[d] Alleging Receipt for Fare. 
Atlantic Coast L. E. Co. v. Thomas, 14 
Ga. App. 619, 82 S. E. 299. 

57. ^ Terre Haute & I. E. Co. v. Fitz- 
gerald, 47 Ind. 79o 

Vol. XXI 



156 



PASSENGERS 



an extra charge for failure to purchase a ticket before boarding train,^^ 
or if it is a condition to riding on a particular train that passengers 
must first secure tickets for such passage, and the plaintiff boards 
such a train without a ticket,^* the complaint must show that the 
plaintiff used reasonable efforts to purchase a ticket and was unable 
to do so. 

Setting Out Ticket or Transfer — The relationship of carrier and pas- 
senger being alleged, the plaintiff need not set out his ticket or allege 
its terms.^" 

(c.) That Train Scheduled To Stop at Plaintiff's Destiiiation. — A plaintiff 
claiming that he was rightfully on the train must show that the train 
was scheduled to stop at his destination."^ 

(d.) Comylmnoe With Jiules and Conditions in Ticket That the passen- 
ger was complying with all the reasonable rules of the company or 
that he was not about to violate them need not be alleged.*^ But a 
compliance with the stipulations disclosed by a ticket set up in the 
pleading must be alleged."^ 

(2.) Allegations as to Ejection. — (a.) In Creneral. — The complaint must 
show the place where the ejection occurred,"* and allege facts showing 
that the ejection from the train was wrongful."^ If unnecessary force 



58. Georgia E. & B. Co. v. Murden, 
83 Ga. 753, 10 S. E. 364. 

Amendment to supply omission of 
allegation, aee infra, II, B, 3, d, (D). 

Proving reason for inabUity to pur- 
chase a ticket which is not alleged, 
see infra, II, B, 3, g. 

59. Indianapolis & St. L. By. Co. v. 
Kennedy, 77 Ind. 507, holding com- 
plaint insufficient. 

60. See infra, this note. 

[a] Where Conductor Refused To 
Accept Ticket. — McGhee v. Cashin, 
130 Ala. 561, 30 So. 367; MoGhee v. 
Ee'ynolds, 117 Ala. 413, 23 So. 68; Birm- 
ingham Ey., L. & P. Co. V. Smith, !■* 
Ala. App. 264, 69 So. 910. 

[b] Where Unnecessary Force Was 
Used. — King v. Southern E. Co., 128 
Ga. 285, 57 S. E. 507. 

[e] But He May Do So. — Birming- 
ham Ey., L. & P. Co. V. Smith, 14 Ala. 
App. 264, 69 So. 910. 

[d] Where plaintiff alleges gener- 
ally the purchase of a ticket, he may 
be required by special demurrer to give 
a description of the ticket showing 
whether it was good for passage on 
the day it was presented. Southern E. 
Co. V. Dyson, 109 Ga. 103, 34 S. E. 997, 
distinguished in King v. Southern E 
Co., 128 Ga. 285, 57 S. E. 507. 

61. White V. Evansville & T. H. R. 
Co., 133 Ind. 480, 33 N. E. 273; Chi- 
cago, St. L. & P. E. Co. V. Bills, 104 

Vol. XXI 



Ind. 13, 3 N. E. 611; Lake Erie & W. 
E. Co. V. Lueas, 18 Ind. App. 239, 47 
N. E. 842; Drew v. Wabash E. Co., 129 
Mo. App. 459, 107 S. W. 478. Compare 
Missouri, K. & T. E. Co. v. Herring, 61 
Tex. Civ. App. 543, 127 S. W. 1155, 130 • 
S. W. 1039. 

[a] An allegation that the ticket 
agent told plaintiff that he could take 
passage on the train from which he was 
later ejected does not cure the omis- 
sion of the allegation in the text. 
White V. Evansville & T. H. E. Co., 133 
Ind. 480, 33 N. E. 273, 

62. South Florida E. Co. v. Ehoads, 
25 Fla. 40, 5 So. 633, 23 Am. St. Eep. 
506, 3 L. E. A. 733. 

63. Birmingham Ey., L. & P. Co. v. 
Smith, 14 Ala. App. 264, 69 So. 910; 
Illinois Cent. E. Co. v. Williams, 147 
Ky. 52, 143 S. W. 760. 

64. Macon, D. & S. E. Co. v. Moore, 
125 Ga. 810, 54 S. E. 700. 

[a] A complaint alleging that while 
going from A. to B. plaintiff was put 
off at C. suflleiently shows C. to be an 
intermediate station. Louisville & N. 
B. Co. V. Grimes, 184 Ala. 413, 63 So. 
554. , ' 

65. Ala. — Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
Mason, 10 Ala. App. 263, 64 So. 154. 
Ind. — White v. Evansville & T. H. E. 
Co., 133 Ind. 480, 33 N. E. 273; Lake 
Erie & W. E. Co. v. Lucas, 18 Ind. App. 
239, 47 N. E. 842. W. Va.— Barnum 



PASSENGERS 



157 



was used in the expulsion, facts showing the use of such force was 
unnecessary must be stated,*" mere epithets or conclusions being in- 
sufficient.*^ 

A declaration or complaint sufficiently shows the carrier's liability 
for its servant's acts which alleges that the defendant, acting through 
its agents or servants, ejected the plaintiff.*' It is not necessary to 
designate the employe or servant ejecting the plaintiff by name,°^ 
or state what servant ejected the plaintiff, whether conductor, or 
brakeinan, etc.'" 

The complaint need not allege the motive of the defendant in eject- 
ing the passenger,'^ or allege a consciousness of the result of the 



V. Baltimore & O. E. Co., 5 W. Va. 10. 
[aj On expulsion from a moving 
train, , whether the train w.aa moving 
rapidly or slowly must be shown. Penn- 
sylvania Co. V. Dean, 92 Ind. 459. 

[b] Ejection Without Sufficient 
Time To Search for Ticket — Louis- 
ville & N. E. Co. V. Mason, 10 Ala. App. 
263, 64 So. 154. 

[c] Ejection at Improper Place. 
Central of Georgia E. Co. v. Bagley, 
173 Ala. 611, 55 So. 894. 

[d] An allegation that the plaintiff 
was ordered and compelled to jump 
from a train is an allegation of a con- 
elusion. The pleader should state what 
was dohe in ordering and compelling 
him to jump. Pennsylvania Co. r. 
Dean, 92 Ind. 459. 

66. Ala. — McGhee v. Eeynolds, 117 
Ala. 413, 23 So. 68. G-a.— Eossman v. 
Georgia E. & P. Co., 146 Ga. 264, 91 S. 
E. 90, L. E. A. 1917 C, 483. lU. 
Churchill v. Chicago & A. E. Co., 67 
111. 390. Ind.— White v. Evansville & 
T. H. E. Co., 133 Ind. 480, 33 N. E. 
273; Chicago, St. L. & P. E. Co. v. 
Bills, 104 Ind. 13, 3 N. E. 611. 

[aJ Compare Lindsay v. Wabash E. 
Co., 141 Mich. 204, 104 N. W. 656, 
holding an ordinary declaration in tres- 
pass vi et armis, without allegations 
showing the plaintiff's eflEort to ride, 
his refusal to pay fare, his ejection and 
persistent effort to board the train, will 
justify proof of an assault upon the 
plaintiff while attempting to board the 
train. 

67. Chicago, St. L. & P. E. Co. v. 
Bills, 104 Ind. 13, 3 N. E. 611; Mitchell 
V. Southern Ey. Co., 77 Miss. 917, 27 
So. 834. Compare White v. Chesapeake 
& O. E. Co., 26 W. Va. 800. 

[a] An allegation that the conduc- 
tor "willfully, violently and forcibly" 
ejected the plaintiff is a statement of 



a conclusion merely as to the wilful- 
ness and violence. McGhee v. Eey- 
nolds, 117 Ala. 413, 418, 23 So. 68; 
Churchill v. Chicago & A. E. Co., 67 
111. 390. 

68. Wabash E. Co. v. Savage, 110 
Ind. 156, 9 N. E. 85. 

[a] An allegation (1) that the con- 
ductor, servant, or agent in charge of 
the train ejected the plaintiff is suffi- 
cient. Ala.— Louisville & N. E. Co. v. 
Laney, 14 Ala. App. 287, 69 So. 993; 
Pullman Co. v. Eiley, 5 Ala. App. 561, 
59 So. 761. Idaho. — Lindsay v. Oregon 
Short Line E. Co., 13 Idaho 477, 90 
Pan. 984, 12 L. E. A. (N. S.) 184. 
Tex.— Texas & P. Ey. Co. v. Casey, 
52 Tex. 112. (2) It is not necessary, in 
such case, to allege that the servant 
was acting within the scope of his em- 
ployment. Lindsay v. Oregon Short 
.Line E. Co., 13 Idaho 477, 90 Pac. 984, 
12 L. E. A. (N. S.) 184; Lake Erie & 
W. E. Co. r. Matthews, 13 Ind. App. 
355, 41 N. E. 842, where plaintiff board- 
ed a freight train thinking it carried 
passengers. 

Alleging act to be within scope of 
employment in personal injury eases, 
see supra, IT, B, 2, b, (V), (5), (b). 

69. Montgomery Traction Co. v. 
Fitzpatrick, 149 Ala. 511, 43 So. 136, 
9 L. E. A. (N. S.) 851. 

70. Wabash E. Co. v. Savage, 110 
Ind. 156, 9 N. E. 85. 

[a] But where the plaintiff is 
wrongfully ejected from a waiting 
room maintained by more than one 
railroad company, it is necessary to 
allege which company the person who 
ejected the plaintiff was employed by. 
Eiley v. Wrightsville & T. E. Co., 133 
Ga. 413, 65 S. E. 890, 24 L. E. A. 
(N. S.) 379, 18 Ann. Caa. 208. 

71. Macon, D. & S. E. Co. v. Moore, 
I 125 Ga. 810, 54 S. E. 700. 

Vol. XXI 



158 



PASSENGERS 



wrongful ejeetion.'^ And where the passenger ejected is in a weak 
or helpless condition, it is unnecessary to allege the cause of such 
condition." 

(b.) Negligence and Contributory Negligence. — Negligence must be al- 
leged where the gravamen of the action is the ejection of a passenger 
at an improper time or place/* or the giving of an improper ticket 
or transfer, or of incorrect information regarding trains.'^ But it 
is otherwise where unnecessary force was used.''* 

Contributory negligence need not be negatived. ''' 

(3.) Allegations of Damage. — The plaintiff must show his damage,^' 
as well as a causal connection between the wrong alleged and the 
injury siiflCered.'" 

(4.) Joinder of Causes of Action. — The plaintiff may join causes of 
action in accordance with the general rules regulating joinder.*" 

(5.) Amendment. — The plaintiff may, in accordance with the gen- 
eral rules, amend his complaint or petition if he does not thereby 
change his cause of action.'^ 

(V.) Answer or Plea.82 _ The defendant must allege facts showing 
justification or discharge of the carrier in ejecting the traveler.^' 
The existence of facts exonerating the carrier from treating a person 
as a passenger or forfeiting the right of a person to be carried on 



72. Louisville & N. E. Co. v. Per- 
kins, 144 Ala. 325, 39 So. 305. 

73. Maeon, D. & S. E. Co. v. Moore, 
125 Ga. 810, 54 S. E. 700. 

74. Bragg 's Admr. v. Norfolk & W. 
E. Co., 110 Va. 867, 67 S. E. 593. 

75. As to actions for negligent giv- 
ing of wrong tickets or information, 
see supra, II, B, 2, a, (IV), (E). 

76. Lake Erie & W. E. Co. v. Mat- 
thews, 13 Ind. App. 355, 41 N. E. 842. 

77. Louisville, N. A. & C. E. Co. v. 
Goben, 15 Ind. App. 128, 42 N. E. 
1116, 43 N. E. 890 (the doctrine is 
inapplicable); Lake Erie & W. E. Co. 
V. Matthews, 13 Ind. App. 355, 41 N. 
E. 842, where unnecessary force was 
used. 

78. Birmingham E., L. & P. Co. v. 
Yielding, 155 Ala. 539, 46 So. 747, 
holding .averment sufiScient. See gen- 
erally the title "Injuries to Persons 
and Property." 

[a] Allegation in Prayer for Relief. 
Galveston, H. & S. A. E. Co. v. Short 
(Tex. Civ. App.), 163 S. W. 601. 

[b] A general averment that the 
plaintiff suffered damage in a certain 
sum is 'sufficient. Atlantic Coast L. 
E. Co. V. Thomas, 14 Qa. App. 619, 82 
S. E. 299. 

79. Birmingham Ey. L. & P. Co. v. 
Tate, 7 Ala. App. 517, 61 So. 32; Kee- 
shan V. Elgin A. & S. Tract. Co., 229 

Vol. XZl 



111. 533, 82 N. B. 360. See 13 Standard 
Peoc. 353. 

80. See the title "Joinder of Ac- 
tions." 

[a] Wrongful Ejection and Refusal 
To Validate Ticket. — McGhee v. Eeyn- 
olds, 117 Ala. 413, 23 So. 68. 

[b] Trespass by Company and by 
Servant.— Illinois Cent. E. Co. v. Lati- 
mer, 128 111. 163, 21 N. E. 7. 

81. See the titles "Amendments and 
Jeofails;" "New Cause of Action or 
Defense." 

[a] To Show Inability To Obtain 
Ticket.— Georgia E. & B. Co. v. Mur- 
den, 83 Ga. 753, 10 S. E. 364. 

[b] To Set Up Negligence in Is- 
suing Transfer. — Montgomery Traction 
Co. V. Eitzpatrick, 149 Ala. 511, 43 
So. 136, 9 L. E. A. (N. S.) 851. 

82. See generally the titles "An- 
swers;" "Pleas." 

83. Ala.— Nashville, C. & St. L. E. 
Co. V. Bates, 133 Ala. 447, 32 So. 589, 
holding pleas to be bad. Cal. — Bylen- 
feldt t\ United Eailroads, 28 Cal. App. 
56, 151 Pac. 293, construing pleas. HI. 
Chicago & E. I., E. Co. v. Casazza, 83 
ni. App. 421. Mass. — Jackson v. Old 
Colony St. E. Co., 206 Mass. 477, 92 
N. E. 725, 30 L. E. A. (N.i S.) 1046, 
19 Ann. Cag. 615. Tex. — See Galves- 
ton, H. & S. A. E. Co. V. Short (Tex. 
Civ. App.), 163 S. W. 601 holding 



PA88EN6EB8 



159 



a train must be pleaded as a defense.^* And if the use of excessive 
force is charged, a plea in justification must set up circumstances 
showing that the use of such force was necessary. '° 

(VI.) Replication.8e _ In gome jurisdictions, the plaintiff must reply 
to the answer in accordance with the general rules relating thereto.'^ 

(VII.) Issues, Proof, and Variance. — The general rules relating to 
issues, proof, and variance apply to this action,'^ 



answer does not admit delivery of 
ticket to servant of company. 

[a] Inconsistent Defenses. — That 
the conductor acted without the scope 
of his authority and that the con- 
ductor was justified in ejecting the 
plaintiff may be pleaded in defense 
although they may be inconsistent. 
International & G. N. E. Co. v. Kentle, 
2 Wills. Civ. Cas. (Tex.) §303. 

Showing facts in justification under 
general issue, see infra II, B, 2, e, 
(VII). 

[b] Where Plaintiff Bode on a Pass. 
Louisville & N. K. Co. v. Dawson, 11 
Ala. App. 621, 66 So. 905. 

84. Ohio & M. By. Co. v. Croucher, 
132 Ind. 275, 31 N. E. 941. 

85. Moore v. Nashville, C. & St. L. 
E., 137 Ala. 495, 34 So. 617; Wright 
V. Union E. Co., 21 E. I. 554, 45 Atl. 
548. 

86. See generally the title "Repli- 
cation and Reply." 

87. Louisville & N. E. Co. v. Daw- 
sou, 11 Ala. App. 621, 630, 66 So. 905; 
Louisville & N. E. Co. v. Mason, 4 
Ala. App. 353, 58 So. 963 (holding 
replication insufScient. because it did 
not show that the plaintiff attempted 
to produce his ticket or notified the 
conductor that he had one and request- 
ed reasonable time to search for it) ; 
McElroy v. Eailroad Co., 7 Phila. (Pa.) 
206. 

[a] In an action for ejection from 
a station, a replication alleging that 
the plaintiff entered the premises and 
purchased a ticket is sufBcient with- 
out an allegation that he entered with 
such intent. But he must show that 
he was waiting for a train that was 
expected to leave within such a short i 
period of time thereafter that he would ' 
have a right to remain until its de- 
parture. Harris v. Stevens, 31 Vt. 
79, 93, 73 Am. Dec. 337. 

88. See Chesapeake & O. E. Co. v. 
Gatewood, 155 Ky. 102, 159 8. W. 660; 
Harding v. Chicago & G. T. By. Co./ 
56 Mich. 628, 23 N. W. 445; also the 



cases cited infra, this note; and gen- 
erally the title "Variance and Fail- 
ure of Proof." 

[a] Thus, (1) where plaintiff al- 
leges one reason for failure to procure 
a ticket, he cannot prove another. 
Everett v. Chicago, E. I. & P. E. Co., 
69 Iowa 15, 28 N. W. 410, 58 Am. Eep. 
207. And (2) under a plea of gen- 
eral issue, the carrier may prove facts 
in the nature of a traverse (Louis- 
ville & N. E. Co. V. Mason, 10 Ala. 
App. 263, 64 So. 154, where disorder- 
liness of passenger was shown), but 
(3) he cannot prove facts in justifica- 
tion or discharge of the ejection (Chi- 
cago & E. I. E. Co. V. Casazza, 83 111. 
App. 421), (4) except for the pur- 
pose of mitigation of damages. Chi- 
cago & E. I. E. Co. V. Casazza, 83 111. 
App. 421. 

[b] A plaintiff who bases his ac- 
tion on tort (1) cannot recover on 
proof of a breach of a contract relat- 
ing to a matter not included within 
the carrier's duties to the public. No- 
ble V. Atchison, T. & S. F. E. Co., 4 
Okla. 534, 46 Pac. 483, where plain- 
tiff attempted to prove a contract to 
stop a through train at his destina- 
tion. See Denver Tramway Co. v. 
Cloud, 6 Colo. App. 445, 40 Pae. 779. 
And, (2) under a complaint in tort 
for malicious ejection, a recovery can- 
not be had as for misdirection by the 
railroad company's servants (Turner 
V. MoCook, 77 Mo. App. 196. But see 
Southern E. Co. v. Hawkins, 121 Ky. 
415, 89 S. W. 258), or (3) on proof of 
ejection at an improper place (Nor- 
folk & W. E. Co. V. Warden, 117 Va. 
801, 86 S. E. 103), or (4) on proof of 
a mistake on the part of the brake- 
men in assisting the passenger to 
alight at an intermediate station. Al- 
lin V. Guff, G. & S. F. 'P. Co., 26 Tex. 
Civ. App. 43, 62 S. W. 1079. (5) But 
if the gist of the action is the assault 
and the use of unnecessary force, the 
variance is not material or fatal where 
the plaintiff alleged to be a passen- 

VqI. XXI 



160 



FA8SENGEBS 



(Vni.) Questions of Law and Fact.89 — The construction of tickets is 
a question of law for the court in such actions.*" But it is a question 
of fact for the jury under the circumstances of the case to determine 
whether a passenger boards a car or train in good faith,*^ whether he 
is afforded a reasonable opportunity to purchase a ticket before board- 
ing,'^ whether he exercises due care to see that he is on the proper, 
train or ear,*^ whether or not he is guilty of a want of proper care 
in failing to examine his ticket and discover mistakes therein/* and 
whether the conductor waived the expiration of the ticket or trans- 
fer."^ So also it is for the jury to determine whether or not a con- 
ductor gives a passenger reasonable opportunity to pay the fare, or 
produce a ticket,'" whether the explanation given by a passenger to 
show the validity of his ticket is a reasonable one,'^ and whether a 
carrier uses due care in ejecting a passenger under the circumstances 
of the case in view of the condition of the passenger, the time, and 
place of ejectment.'^ And the questions, whether in the ejecting the 
servant of the railroad company used only such force as was reason- 



ger is proved a trespasser. Mykleby v. 
Chicago, St. P., M. & O. E. Co., 39 
Minn. 54, 38 N. "W. 763; Eandell v. 
Chicago, E. I. & P. E. Co., 102 Mo. 
App. 342, 352, 76 S. W. 493. See also 
Adams v. St. Louis & S. F. E. Co., 
149 Mo. App. 278, 130 S. W. 48. Nor 
(6) is it material whether the car or 
train is proved to be in motion or 
standing still. Louisville & N. E. Co. 
V. Penick, 8 Ala. App. 558, 62 So. 965. 

89. Generally, see supra, II, A, 6; 
and the title "Province of Judge and 
Jury." 

90. Ligon V. St. Louis & S. F. E. 
Co., 184 Mo. App. 187, 168 S. W. 647. 

91. Short V. St. Louis & S. F. E. 
Co., 150 Mo. App. 359, 130 8. W. 488. 

92. Eeed v. Great Northern Ey. Co., 
76 Minn. 163, 78 N. W. 974; Eivers v. 
Kansas City, M. & B. E. Co., 86 Miss. 
571, 38 So. 508. 

[a] Where the evidence is not clear 
as to the time the plaintiff presented 
himself at the defendant's station to 
buy a ticket .and as there is room for 
doubt as to what ia a reasonable time 
under the circumstances, the question 
of what is a reasonable time is a mixed 
question of law and fact. Louisville 
& N. E. Co. V. Kay, 8 Ala. App. 562, 
62 So. 1014. 

93. Spirk v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co., 
57 Neb. 565, 78 N. W. 272. 

94. Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. v. Eather, 
3 Tex. Civ. App. 72, 21 S. W. 951. 

95. Samanowitz v. New York Eys. 
Co., 163 N. Y. Supp. 550. 

96. Fla. — Seaboard Air Line E. Co. 

Vol. XXI 



V. Scarborough, 52 Fla. 425, 42 So. 
706. lU.— Chicago & E. I. E. Co. v. 
Casazza, 83 111. App. 421. N. Y.— Huba 
V. Schenectady E. Co., 85 App. Div. 
199, 83 N. Y. Supp. 157. Tex.— In- 
ternational & G. N. E. Co. V. Wilkes, 68 
Tex. 617, 5 S. W. 491, 2 Am. St. Eep. 
515. 

97. McKeown v. Southern E. Co., 
98 S. C. 338, 82 S. E. 437. 

98. Donovan v. Greenfield & T. F. 
St. E. Co., 183 Fed. 526, 106 C. C. A. 
72, where passenger was intoxicated. 
Ala.— King V. Brown, 108 Ala. 68, 18 
So. 935. 111.— Illinois Cent. E. Co. v. 
Latimer, 128 111. 163, 21 N. E. 7; 
Chicago C. E. Co. v. O'Donnell, 109 HI. 
App. 616. Ia. — Brown v. Chicago, E. 
I. & P. E. Co., 51 Iowa 235, 1 N. W. 
487. Kan. — Union Pac. E. Go. v. Mitch- 
ell, 56 Kan. 324, 43 Pac. 244, where 
train was moving. Mass. — Murphy v. 
Union E. Co., 118 Mass. 228, 8 Am. Neg. 
Cas. 405, where train was in motion. 
Miss. — Jackson v. Alabama & V. Ry. Co., 
76 Miss. 703, 25 So. 353. N. Y. —Buckley 
V. Hudson Val. E. Co., 212 N. Y. 440, 
106 N. E. 121, Ann. Cas. 1915D, 143, 
L. E. A. 1915C, 134, reversing 151 
App. Div. 909, 135 N. Y. Supp. 1102. 
Pa. — Tilburg V. Northern Cent. R. Co., 
217 Pa. 618, 66 Atl. 846, 12 L. E. A. 
(N. S.) 359. Tex.— Gulf, C. & S. F. 
E. Co. V. Green (Tex. Civ. App.), 141 
S. W. 341. 

[a] Ejection From Moving Train. 
Union Pac. E. Co. v. Mitchell, 56 Kan. 
324, 43 Pac. 24^; Healey v. City Pas- 
senger R. Co., 28 Ohio St. 23. 



PASSENGERS 



161 



ably necessary,®' whether he used abusive language,^ or was guilty of 
malice,^ whether he was justified in striking the passenger after he 
had been ejected,^ and whether under the . circumstances an ejected 
passenger was justified in pursuing the course he adopted after being 
ejected,* as well as the questions whether the eviction of a parent 
amounted to the eviction of a child or vice versa,^ and whether or 
not a dwelling house was near the place of ejection under a statute 
requiring it,® are usually all questions for the jury. 

3. Actions Relating to Transportation in Sleeping Oars.' — For 
breach of a contract for sleeping car accommodations, a passenger may 
bring assumpsit or case at his election.* The same remedies are avail- 
able where, notwithstanding the fact that it has accommodations, the 
sleeping car company refuses to furnish them on a proper application.® 
Passengers in sleeping cars injured,^" or ejected therefrom,^^ may sue 



99. lU.— Chicago & E. I. E. Co. v. 
Casazza, 83 ni. App. 421. Minn. — ^Wil- 
lard V. St. Paul C. E. Co., 116 Minn. 
183, 133 N. W. 465. Mo. — Eandell v. 
Chicago, E. I. & P. R. Co., 102 Mo. 
App. 342, 352, 76 S. W. 493. N. J. 
Bottstein v. Erie E. Co., 84 N. J. L; 
404, 87 Atl. 94. N. Y.— Dowd v. Al- 
bany Ey., 47 App. Div. 202, 62 N. Y. 
Supp. 179; Samanowitz v. New York 
Eys. Co., 163 N. Y. Supp. 550. N. C. 
McNairy v. Norfolk & W. E. Co., 172 
N. C. 505, 90 S. B. 497. S. C— Mc- 
Keown v. Southern E. Co., 98 S. C. 
338, 82 S. E. 437; Norman v. Southern 
K. Co., 65 S. C. 517, 44 S. E. 83, 95 
Am. St. Eep. 809; Griffin v. Southern 
It. Co., 65 S. C. 122, 43 S. E. 445. 

1. Adams v. Southern E. Co., 103 
S. C. 327, 87 S. E. 1007. 

2. Hartridge v. United Eys. Co. 
(Mo. App.), 196 S. W. 59. 

3. Lindsay v. Wabash E. Co., 141 
Mich. 204, 104 N. W. 656. 

4. OaL — Sloane v. Southern Cal. 
By. Co., Ill Cal. 668, 44 Pae. 320, 32 
L. E. A. 193. Mo. — t)rew v. Wabash 
E. Co., 129 Mo. App. 459, 107 S. W. 
478. Pa. — ^Tilburg v. Northern Cent. 
E. Co., 221 Pa. 245, 70 Atl. 723; Ma- 
lone V. Pittsburgh & L. E. B. Co., 152 
Pa. 390, 25 Atl. 638, where plaintiff 
attempted to walk back to station. 

5. Forrest v. G-reenville, 8. & A. E. 
Co., 102 S. C. 54, 86 S. B. 193. 

6. Loomis v. Jewett, 35 Hun (N. 
Y.) 313. 

7. For loss of baggage in a sleep- 
ing car see supra, II, B, 4, e, (I). 

8. Ga. — See Bryant v. Atlantic C. 
K E. Co., 19 Ga. App. 536, 91 S. E. 
1047, holding petition states cause of 
action. HI.— NeTin v. Pullman Palace 

n 



Car Co., 106 111. 222, 46 Am. Eep. 688. 
N. Y. — Aplington v. Pullman Co., 110 
App. IHv. 250, 97 N. Y. Supp. 329', 17 
N. Y. Ann. Cas. 455. Tex. — ^Pullman 
Palace-Car Co. v. Booth (Tex. Civ. 
App.), 28 S. W. 719, where plaintiff re- 
served accommodations without pay- 
ing therefor at the time. 

[a] Venue. — Bryant v. Atlantic C. 
L. E. Co., 19 Ga. App. 536, 91 S. E. 
1047. 

[b] Whether plaintiff's conduct Is 
reasonable in refusing to accept an 
upper berth or another lower berth 
which he would have to give up early 
in the morning is a question for the 
jury, Aplington v. Pullman Co., 110 
App. Biv. 250, 97 N. Y. Supp. 329, 17 
N. Y. Ann. Cas. 455. 

9. Nevin v. Pullman Palace Car Co., 
106 III. 222, 46 Am. Eep. 688. 

10. Pullman Coi. v. Norton (Tex. 
Civ. App.), 91 S. W. 841, holding an- 
swer of the railroad company suffi- 
ciently sets up the contract with the 
Pullman company showing its liabil- 
ity to the railroad company. 

As to injuries to passengers gener- 
ally, see supra, II, B, 2, b. 

11. XT. 8. — Calhoun v. Pullman Pal- 
ace Car Co., 149 Fed. 546, where an 
agent informed passenger it was not 
necessary to validate ticket. Ala. 
Pullman Co. v. Eiley, 5 Ala. App. 561, 
59 So. 761. Tex. — Pullman Co. v. 
Hoyle, 52 Tex. Civ. App. 534, 115 S. 
W. 315, where both sleeping car com- 
pany and railroad company were 
joined. 

As to actions for ejection of passen- 
gers generally, see supra, II, B, 2, c. 

[a] Pleadings and Proof. — Under 
allegations of wrongful, malicious and 

Vol. XXI 



162 



PA88ENGEB8 



for damages in accordance with general rules relatingi to such actions. 

4. Actions for Damage, Loss or Delay of Baggage and Personal 
EfFects.i2 — a. Form amd Bight of Action. —(I.) In General. — A pas- 
senger who is not carried gratuitously^* may sue for the injury to, 
and delay or loss of his personal baggage, either on the contract or 
in tort,^* unless he accepts the injured baggage, in which case he 
must sue in tort for damages.^^ If an intending passenger's luggage 
is lost after delivery to the carrier, but before he has purchased a 
ticket and becomes a passenger, the remedy of the party is in case 
to recover damages for negligence.^* 

(II.) As Affected Tjy Character and Ownership of Baggage. — If property 
not properly baggage is carried as such without notice of its char- 
acter, the carrier can be held liable only in an action for gross neg- 
ligence or wilfulness,^^ brought by the owner, if the passenger does 
not own it.^^ If, however, the carrier is given notice that the trunks 
contain property not personal baggage of the passenger, and receives 



wilful breach of contract to reserve 
accommodation, the plaintiff may prove 
rudeness of the conductor in ejecting 
the plaintiff from the c^r. Pullman 
Palace-Car Co. v. Booth (Tex. Civ. 
App.), 28 S. W. 719. 

[b] Whether plaintiff is negligent 
in failing to discover conditions in 
Pullman ticket is for the jury. Ap- 
Ungton V. Pullman Co., 110 App. Div. 
850, 97 N. Y. Supp. 329, 17 N. Y. Ann. 
Cas. 455. 

12. See also the title "Freight 
Carriers." 

Judicial notice as to carriage of 
samples of drununers as baggage, see 
7 Bncy. of Ev. 941, note 62. 

13. See infra, this note. 

[aj Assumpsit cannot be main- 
tained (1) for loss of baggage where 
the passenger and his baggage are car- 
ried gratuitously. Flint & P. M. E. Co. 
17. Wier, 37 Mich. Ill, 26 Am. Eep. 
499. (2) But a child's baggage which 
is checked on the ticket of an adult 
accompanying him is not carried free 
within the rule although the child is 
not required to have a ticket. Withey 
V. Pere Marquette E. Co., 141 Mich. 
412, 104 N. W. 773, 113 Am. St. Eep. 
533, 1 L. E. A. (N. S.) 352. 

14. Wolf V. Grand Eapids, H. & C. 
Ey., 149 Mich. 75, 112 N. W. 732; 
Weed V. Saratoga & S. E. Co., 19 Wend. 
(N. Y.) 534. 

[a] Whether Trover Will Lie. 
Hawkins v. Hoffman, 6 Hill (N. Y.) 
586, 41 Am. Dec' 767; Tolano v. Na- 
tional Steam Nav. Co., 4 Abb Pr 
(N. S.) 316, 35 How. Pr. 496, 5 Eobt. 

Vol. XXI 



318; Cass v. New York & N. H. E. Co., 
1 B. D. Smith (N. Y.) 522. See gener- 
ally the title "Trover and Conver- 
sion." 

[b] If a carrier refuses to carry 
the passenger in violation of his con- 
tract and proceeds without giving him 
a reasonable opportunity to remove 
his luggage or proceeds with a view 
to carry it out of the passenger 's reach, 
trespass will lie. Holmes v. Doane, 
3 Gray (Mass.) 328. 

[c] Where a carrier forwards bag- 
gage by freight without the consent 
of the passenger, and it is lost, the 
latter may sue for breach of duty aris- 
ing by operation of law out of deal- 
ing with trunks as freight, or he may 
sue in trover. Southern E. Co. v. 
Brown, 192 Ala. S89, 68 So. 321. 

IR Atchison, T. & S. F. Ey. Co. v. 
Wilkinson, 55 Kan. 83, 39 Pac. 1043, 
cannot sue on account for the value 
of the articles. 

16. Corry v. Pennsylvania E. Co., 
194 Pa. 516, 45 Atl. 341, and not by 
an action founded on breach of con- 
tract to carry him and his baggage. 

17. Brick v. Atlantic C. L. E. Co., 
145 N. C. 203, 58 S. E. 1073, 122 Am. 
St. Eep. 440. 

18. Brick v, Atlantic C. L. E. Co. 
145 N. C. 203, 58 S. E. 1073; Toledo 
& 0. C. E. Co. V. Ambach, 10 Ohio 
Cir. Ct. 490. 

[a] The passenger cannot recover 
(1) in an action for the injury or loss 
of such baggage, in his own name 
(HI. — Doherty v. Grand Trunk W. E. 
Co., 194 111. App. 354. Kyv— Illinois 



PASSENGERS 



163 



them as baggage, the owner may sue in tort,^® or, it has been held, 
on the contract.^" The law recognizes exceptions to these rules where 
the passenger and the owner of the baggage stand in a relation of 
husband and wife,^^ or parent and child.^^ A passenger entrusted 
with money to defray the expenses of a person traveling with him 
may bring an action against a carrier whose servant stole it.^^ 
b. Venue.^* — An action for loss of baggage may be brought in 



Cent. R. Co. v. Matthews, 114 Ky. 
973, 72 S. W. 302, 102 Am. St. Eep. 
316, 60 L. E. A. 846. N. C— Brick 
V. Atlantic C. L. E. Co., 145 N. C. 
203, 58 S. E. 1073, 122 An;., St. Eep. 
440), unless (2) he has an interest 
by being responsible therefor and is 
on that account regarded as the own- 
er. Illinois Cent. E. Co. v. Matthews, 
114 Ky. 973, 72 S. W. 302, 102 Am. 
St. Eep. 316, 60 L. E. A. 846. See 
Ft. Worth & E. G. E. Co. v. Eosenthal 
Millinery Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 29 S. 
W. 196, query. 

19. Lake Shore & M. S. Ey. Co. v. 
Hochstim, 67 111. App. 514; Fort Worth 
& E G. E. Co. V. Eosenthal Millinery 
Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 29 S. W. 196. 

[a] A principal who provides ar- 
tides for his agent (1) which are 
properly baggage, may sue to recover 
for the loss in an action on the case 
(Grant v. Newton, 1 E. D. Smith (N. 
Y.) 95, where a father employed his 
son and sends him on a journey and 
places certain articles of wearing ap- 
parel in the son's trunk for the use 
of the son), (2) but not, it has been 
held, on the contract. Weed v. Sara- 
toga & S. E. Co., 19 Wend. (N. Y.) 
534, 544. 

20. Fort Worth & E. G. E. Co. v. 
Eosenthal Millinery Co. (Tex. Civ. 
App.), 29 S. W. 196, though the eon- 
tract is not made with the owner, it 
is made for his benefit. See also Lake 
Shore & M. S. Ey. Co. v. Hochstim, 
67 111. App. 514, although an action on 
the ease, the court said the shipment 
was really made by the owner, qui 
facit 'per alium facit per se, and the 
undiscovered principal might sue on 
the contract. 

21. See infra, this note. 

[a] A husband (1) may sue for 
the loss of baggage of his wife. Sog- 
ers V. Long Island E. Co., 1 Thomp. 
& C. (N. Y.) 396; Battle v. Columbia, 
N. & L. E. E., 70 S. 0. 329, 49 S. B. 
849. (2) Whether he furnished the ar- 
ticles is immaterial. Withey v. Pere 
Marquette R. Co., 141 Mich. 412, 104 



N. W. 778, 113 Am. St. Eep. 533, 1 
L. E. A. (N. 8.) 352; Burnes V. Chi- 
cago, E. I. & P. E. Co., 167 Mo. App. 
62, 150 S. W. 1100. But see Richard- 
son V. Louisville & N. R. Co., ■ 85 Ala. 
559, 5 So. 308, 2 L. R. A. 716. (3)" 
Even though the husband travels on 
another train, he may sue. Curtis v, 
Delaware, L. & W. R. Co., 74 N. Y. 
116, 30 Am. Eep. 271. (4) And he 
may sue even though he had no ticket 
and paid no fare (Eailroad Co. v. 
Baldwin, 113 Tenn. 205, 81 S. W. 599), 
or (5) if he rides on a pass. Malone 
V. Boston & W. E. Corp., 12 Gray 
(Mass.) 38^, 74 Am. Dec. 598. 

[b] A husband who has possession 
of baggage of the wife may, sue for 
its loss. Godfrey v. Pullman Co., 87 
S. C. 361, 69 S. E. 666, Ann. Cas. 1912 
B, 971. 

[c] The wife (1) may sue for loss 
of her baggage (State of New York, 
7 Ben. 450, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 13,328), 
(2) even if the articles were given to 
her by her husband. Eawson v. Penn- 
sylvania E. Co., 48 N. Y. 212, 8 Am. 
Eep. 543. 

As to joinder of hnsband and wife, 
see infra, II, B, 4, d. 

22. See infra, this note. 

[a] _ A father may maintain as- 
sumpsit for the loss or injury to bag- 
gage of the child carried with his 
baggage. Withey c. Pere Marquette 
E. Co., 141 Mich. 412, 104 N. W. 773, 
113 Am. St. Eep. 533, 1 L. E. A. (N. S.) 
352. See also Ala. — Eichardson v. 
Louisville & N. E. Co., 85 Ala. 559, 
5 So. 308, 2 L. R. A. 716. Md.— Bal- 
timore Steam-Packet Co. v. Smith, 23 
Md. 402, 87 Am. Dec. 575. N. Y. 
Prentice v. Decker, 49 Barb. 21; Grant 
V. Newton, 1 E. D. Smith 95, a father 
may maintain ease for the baggage of 
a son. 

23. Pullman Palace-Car Co. v. Gav- 
in, 93 Tenn. 53, 23 S. W. 70, 42 Am. 
St. Rep. 902, 21 L. R. A; 298. 

24. See generally the title "Ven- 
ue." 

Vol. XXI 



164 



PA88ENGEB8 



the county in which the plaintiff purchased his ticket and in which 
the railroad company has an agent."' 

c. Parties.'^ — The proper party plaintiff is generally the passen- 
ger;^' but an assignee may maintain trover.'" In an action ex con- 
tractu, passengers may be joined as plaintiffs who have personal 
baggage in a trunk that is lost,''* and for breach of a contract to 
carry baggage of a number of persons, each party may bring a sep- 
arate action.'" But in a tort action, persons having separate interests 
in and sustaining separate damage to the contents of a trunk or other 
receptacle cannot join, although the same act caused the damage.^^ 
If the baggage lost belongs to a married woman, she and her husband 
may join as parties plaintiff.^" The fact that plaintiff alleges that 
the defendant and the connecting carriers are partners does not neces- 
sitate joining them.'" 

d. Pleadings. — (I.) Declaration and Complaint. — In an action for 
injury to or loss of baggage, the declaration or complaint must state 
a cause of action in accordance with the general rules relating to 
such pleadings.'* He must allege a contract for carriage'® of himself 



25. Pullman Palace-Car Co. v. At- 
ents, 28 Tex. Civ. App. 71, 66 S. W. 
.329, although the fare was not colleet- 
ed until the train had entered Mexico, 
the plaintiff was a passenger from Tex- 
as and the contract "was praotiaally 
entered into there." 

[a] Even though baggage is 
checked to a county, the carrier's plea 
of privilege that it has no agent there 
will be sustained. Gulf, C. & S. F. 
E. Co. V. Jackson, 4 Wills. Civ. Gas. 
§47, 15 S. W. 128. 

26. See generally the title "Par- 
ties." 

27. As to right of action, see supra, 
U, B, 4, a. 

28. Cass V. New York & N. H. E. 
Co., 1 E. D. Smith (N. Y.) 522, where 
the baggage is wrongfully detained. 

29. Park v. Southern E. Co., 78 
S. C. 302, 58 S. E. 931. 

30. Spencer v. Wabash E. Co., 36 
App. Div. 446, 55 N. Y. Supp. 948, the 
promise . made to the agent of the 
company is for the benefit of eaeh 
member. 

31. St. Louis & S. F. E. Co. v. Dick- 
ergon, 29 Okla. 386, 118 Pao. 140. 

32. Keith v. New York C. E. E., 
2 Ohio Dec. (Eeprint) 125, 1 W. L. M. 
451; Railroad Co. v. Baldwin, 113 Tenn. 
205, 81 S. W. 599. See generally the 
title "Husband and Wife." 

As to right of action for wife's 
baggage, see supra, II, B, 4, a, (1). 

33. International & 6. N. E.. Co. v. 

Vol. XXI 



Foltz, 3 Tex. Civ. App. 644, 22 S. W. 
541. 

Necessity for joining partners, see 
the title "Partnership." 

34. See the following: Ala. — ^Birm- 
ingham Ey., L. & P. Co. V. Grant, 2 
Ala. App. 552, 56 So. 769. N. T. 
Spencer v. Wabash E. Co., 36 App. 
Div. 446, 55 N. Y. Supp. 948. Tex. 
Bonner v. De Mendoza, 4 Wills. Civ. 
Cas. §234, 16 S. W. 976, petition for 
rifling of valise left in coach held 
sufficient. 

And see generally the title "Declar- 
ation and Complaint." 

Form of complaint for loss of bag- 
gage, see 9 Standard Peoc. 941. 

[a] Sufficient Petition for Dam- 
ages for Delay. — Ford v. Atlantic 
Coast L. E. Co., 8 6a. App. 295, 68 
S. E. 1072. 

35. Bonner v. De Mendoza, 4 Wills. 
Civ. Cas. (Tex.) §234, 16 S. W. 976. 

[a] Sufficient Allegation.— Bonner 
V. De Mendoza, 4 Wills. Civ. Caa. 
(Tex.) §334, 16 a W. 976. 

[b] That the hire for carrying the 
baggage was part of the purchase 
money of plaintiff's ticket need not 
be alleged. Eanehau v. Eutland E. 
Co., 71 Vt. 142, 43 Atl. 11, 76 Am. St. 
Eep. 761. 

[c] An allegation that the owner 
of the baggage was a passenger on the 
road with the baggage is not indis- 
pensable. Illinois Cent. E. Co. v. Cope- 



PASSENGERS 



165 



and his baggage, a delivery of the baggage to the carrier,^^ for the 
purpose of being carried by the defendant,^^ a demand for redelivery 
at the ])lafie of destination,'^ and a failure to redeliver,^' or re- 
delivery in a damaged condition.*" An itemized list of the articles 
of baggage lost, destroyed, or damaged and a statement of the nature 
and character of each article, its value and the damage, must be 
made,*^ unless the action is brought for damages for delay in trans- 
portation.*- If special damages are claimed, facts putting the de- 
fendant on notice of special circumstances incident to the carriage of 
the baggage must be alleged.*^ It is not necessary to allege negli- 
gence,** except in those cases in which the carrier is liable only on 
proof of negligence.*® Nor is it necessary to describe the articles 
delivered as the baggage of the plaintiff,** or to allege facts showing 
that the enumerated articles constitute baggage as this would be 
pleading evidence.*' If the action is brought against a connecting 
carrier, it must be alleged that it and the first carriers are joint con- 
tractors,** or that it received the baggage.** 

(II.) Answer or Plea. —The general rules relating to pleas and an- 
swers apply to this action.^" 



land, 24 111. 332, 76 Am. Dee. 749; 
Chicago, E. I. & P. E. Co. v. Conklin, 
32 Kan. 55, 3 Pac. 762. 

36. Cleveland, C. C. & St. L. E. Co. 
V. Tyler, 9 Ind. App. 689, 35 N. E. 
523. 

37. Southern E. Co. v. Eosenheim & 
Sons, 1 Ga. App. 766, 58 S. E. 81, omis- 
sion of this averment makes the dec- 
laration one merely for breach of con- 
tract of bailment. 

38. Cleveland, C. C. & St. L. E. Co. 
j;. Tyler, 9 Ind. App. 689, 35 N. E. 523. 

[a] Presentation of -Uie check need 
not be alleged. Cleveland, C. C. & St. 
L. E. Co. V. Tyler, 9 Ind. App. 689, 
35 N. E. 523. 

39. Cleveland, C. C. & St. L. E. Co. 
V. Tyler, 9 Ind. App. 689, 35 N. E. 
523. 

40. See cases cited supra, this sec- 
tion. 

41. Houston, E. & W. T. Ey. Co. v. 
Scale, 28 Tex. Civ. App. 364, 67 S. W. 
437. 

[a] Sufficient Desciiption. — Mont- 
gomery & E. E. Co. V. Culver, 75 Ala. 
587, 51 Am. Eep. 483. 

42. Texas & N. O .E. Co. v. Eus- 
sell (Tex. Civ. App.), 97 S. W. 1090. 

43. Wehman v. Southern Ey., 74 S. 
C. 286, 54 S. E. 360. 

44. Chicago, E. I. & P. E. Co. v. 
Conklin, 32 Kan. 55, 3 Pac. 762; Wal- 
lace V. Detroit, G. H. & M. B. Co., 
176 Mich. 128, 142 N. W. 558, Ann. 
Cas. 1915B, 631. 



45. See the cases cited infra, this 
note. 

[a] Thus, negligence must be al- 
leged (1) where the carrier by special 
contract limits its liability and the 
plaintiff seeks to recover in excess of 
the limitation (Wells v. Great North- 
ern E. Co., 59 Ore. 165, 114 Pac. 92, 
116 Pac. 1070, 34 L. E. A. (N. S.) 
818); (2) where the baggage is not 
claimed in a, reasonable time after ar- 
rival and the carrier is liable as a 
warehouseman only (see Wallace v. 
Detroit, G. H. & M. E. Co., 176 Mich. 
128, 142 N. W. 558, Ann. Cas. 1915B, 
631); (3) where the baggage lost was 
retained in the control of the passen- 
ger. Carpenter v. New York, N. H. & 
H. E. .Co., 10 N. Y. St. 712; Bonner 
V. Grumbach, 2 Tex. Civ. App. 482, 
21 S. W. 1010. 

Where merchandise is carried, see 
supra, II, B, 4, a, (II). 

[b] Sufficient Allegation of Negli- 
gence.— Pullman Palace-Car Co. v. 
Adams, 120 Ala. 581, 24 So. 921, 74 
Am. St. Eep. 53, 45 L. E. A. 767. 

46. Eanchau v. Eutland E. Co., 71 
Vt. 142, 43 Atl. 11, 76 Am, St. Eep. 
761. ^ 

47. Carter-MuUaly T. Co. v. An- 
gell (Tex. Civ. App.), 181 8. W. 237. 

48. Telder v. Columbia & G. E. Co., 
21 S. C. 35, 53 Am. Eep. 656. 

49. Pelder v. Columbia & G. E. Co., 
21 S. C. 35, 53 Am. Eep. 656. 

50. See the titles "Answers;" 
"Denials;" "Pleas;" and Louisville 

Vol. XXI 



166 



PASSENGERS 



(in.) Eeplication. — The plaintiff is sometimes required to reply to 
the answer."^ 

e. Variance. — The plaintiff, in an action for loss or damage to 
baggage, must recover secundum allegata et probata in accordance 
with the general rules.^'' 

f. Questions of Law and Fact. — The general rules as to what are 
questions of law and fact apply' to actions relating to baggage.^^ 



& N. E. Co. V. Hestle (Ala.), 75 So. 
885, holding plea showing exemption 
from liability as an insurer sufficient. 

[a] Any vadid excuses for failure 
to redeliver the baggage at the place 
of destination must be set up in the 
answer. Cleveland, C. C. & St. L. E. 
Co. V. Tyler, 9 Ind. App. 689, 35 N. 
E. 523. 

[b] An allegation (1) of a notice 
on tiie check limiting liability is no 
allegation of a contract to that ef- 
fect, there being no showing as to 
plaintiff's knowledge thereof. Martin 
V. Central E. Co., 121 App. Div. 552, 
106 N. Y. Supp. 226. (2) So also a 
plea of limitation of liability by vir- 
tue of a notice on the baggage check 
is insufficient which shows no special 
contract entered into in consideration 
of reduced charges or special conces- 
sions, and does not negative the un- 
reasonableness thereof. Louisville & 
N. E. Co. V. Hestle (Ala), 75 So. 885. 

[e] Inconsistent Defenses. — A plea 
that defendant tendered the trunk to 
the plaintiff does not modify a general 
denial so as to amount to an admis- 
sion of plaintiff's cause of action. Lake 
Shore & M. S. Ey. Co. v. Warren, 3 
Wyo. 134, 6 Pae. 724. 

51. See infra, this note, and gen- 
erally the title "Replication and Be- 

piy." 

[a] Particular facts excusing a 
failure to claim baggage within a rea- 
sonable time after arrival must be aet 
up by way of replication where the 
answer shows it was not so claimed. 
Louisville & N. E. Co. v. Hestle (Ala.), 
75 So. 885. 

52. Montgomery & E. E. Co. v. Cul- 
ver, 75 Ala. 587, 51 Am. Eep. 483; 
Eanchau v. Eutland E. Co., 71 Vt. 
142, 43 Atl. 11, 76 Am. St. Bep. 761. 
See generally the title "Variance and 
Failure of Proof." 

[a] Under a general denial (1) the 
carrier cannot prove a limitation of 
liability (Crowley Bros. v. Grand Trunk 
E. Co., 185 Mich. 482, 152 N. W. 215), 
or (2) a liability as to the baggage in 

Vol. XXI 



question as a warehouseman merely 
and loss without fault on its part. 
Heiden v. Atlantic C. L. E. E., 84 S. C. 
117, 65 S. E. 987. 

53. See infra, this note and gen- 
erally the title "Province of Judge 
aaid Jury." 

[a] So that (1) where the evidence 
is disputed, it is a question for the 
jury whether there was delivery of 
baggage to tie carrier (Ga. — Dibble 
V. Brown, 12 Ga. 217, 56 Am. Dei. 460. 
la. — Green v. Milwaukee & St. P. E. 
Co., 41 Iowa 410. Minn. — McKibbin 

, V. Great Northern Ey. Co., 75 Minn. 
232, 80 N. W. 1052); (2) whether it 
was delivered an unreasonable time 
.before the departure of a train (Cone 
V. Southern Ey., 85 S. C. 524, 671 S. E. 
779) ; (3) whether the baggage reached 
the station to which it was checked 
(Louisville & N. E. Co. v. Hestle 
(Ala.), 75 So. 885), or (4) whether it 
was delivered to the passenger (Mat- 
teson V. New York Cent. & H. E. E. 
Co., 76 N. Y. 381), or (5) claimed by 
him within a reasonable time after ar- 
rival. Ala. — Louisville & N. E. Co. v. 
Hestle, 75 So. 885. la. — Ditman B. 
& S. Co. V. Keokuk & W. E. Co., 91 
Iowa 416, 59 N. W. 257, 5\ Am. St. 
Eep. 352. Ky. — Louisville, C. & L. 
E. Co. V. Mahan, 8 Bush 184. Mich. 
Crowley Bros. v. Grand Trunk E. Co., 
185 Mich. 482, 152 N. W. 215; Wal- 
lace V. Detroit, G. H. & M. E. Co., 
176 Mich. 128, 142 N. "W. 558, Ann. 
Cas. 1915 B, 631. Miss.— Zeigler Bros. 
V. Mobile & O. E. Co., 87 Miss. 367, 

: 39 So. 811. N. Y.— Both v. Buffalo 
& S. L. E. Co., 34 N. Y. 548, 90 Am. 
Dec. 736; Moffat v. Long Island E. 
Co., 123 App. Div. 719, 107 N. Y. 
Supp. 1113; Gilhooly v. New York & 
S. S. N. Co., 1 Daly 197. (6) And 
similarly it is a question of fact wheth- 
er the Carrier had notice that the 
package tendered as baggage con- 
tained articles not properly baggage 
(N. Y.— Trimble v. New York Cent. 
& H. E. E. Co., 162 N. Y. 84, 56 N. 
E. 532, 48 L. E. A. 115; Sloman v. 



PASSENGERS 



167 



What Is Baggage. - The question as to what is embraced in the term 
baggage is one of mixed law and faet.°* If the evidence is undisputed 
and is susceptible of one inference only the question is for the court f^ 
but it is otherwise if the evidence is susceptible of more than one in- 
ferenee.^° Subject to this rule, it is a question for the jury, whether 
certain classes of articles usually transported by the different modes 
of public conveyance are included in the term " baggage, "°' but it 
is the province of the jury to determine whether a particular article, 
claimed as baggage, comes within the definition in view of the nature 
of the journey and the condition of the passenger. ^^ Likewise, when 
the question is as to the quantity of the articles generally coming under 



Great Western E. Co., 67 N". T. 208. 
Ohio. — Bowler & B. Co. v. Toledo & 
O. Cl R. Co., 10 Ohio Cir. Ct. 272. 
Tex.— St. Louis, I. M. & S. E. Co. v. 
Green, 44 Tex. Cir. App. 13, 97 S. W. 
531); (7) whether a passenger had 
knowledge of a notice limiting the 
carrier's liability (Brown v. Eastern 
E. Co., 11 Cush. [Mass.] 97; Madan v. 
Sherard, 73 N. Y. 329, 29 Am. Eep. 
153), and (8) whether baggage room 
is kept in a reasonably safe condi- 
tion. Nealand v. Boston & Me. E. E., 
161 Mass. 67, 36 N. E. 592. 

[b] If the evidence is undisputed, 
what is a reasonable time in which 
to call for baggage is a question for 
the court. Colo. — Denver & E. G. E. 
Co. V. Doyle, 58 Colo. 327, 145 Pac. 
688, L. E. A. 1915D, 113. Mich. 
Crowley Bros. ;;. Grand Trunk E. Co., 
185 Mich. 482, 152 N. W. 215. N. Y. 
Both V. Buffalo & S. L. E. Co., 34 
N. Y. 548, 90 Am. Dec. 736; Mortland 
V. Philadelphia & E. Ey. Co., 81 Hun 
473, 30 N. Y. Supp. 1021, 63 N. Y. 
St. 215. 

54. Neb.— Gibbons v. Chicago, B. & 
Q. E. Co., 98 Neb. 696, 154 N. W. 226. 
S. C. — Vlasservitch v. Augusta & A. 
E. Co., 85 S. C. 291, 67 S. E. 306. Tex. 
Jones V. Priester, 1 White & W. Civ. 
Cas. §613. 

55. Ark.— St. Louis, I. M. & S. E. 
Co. V. Miller, 103 Ark. 37, 145 S. W. 
889, 39 L. R. A. (N. S.) 634. Mass. 
Connolly v. Warren, 106 Mass. 146, 
8 Am. Eep. 300. Neb. — Gibbons v. 
Chicag-o, B. & Q. E. Co., 98 Neb. 696, 
154 N. W. 226. N. Y.— Wheeler v. 
Oceanic Steam Nav. Co., 52 Hun 75, 
5 N. Y. Supp. 101, 22 N. Y. St. 590. 
S. C. — Vlasservitch v. Augusta & A. E. 
Co., 85 S. C. 291, 67 S. E. 306. S. D. 
House V. Chicago & N. W. E. Co., 30 
S. D. 321, 336, 138 N. W. 809. 

[aj A feather bed not intended for 



use on a voyage will be held not to 
be an article of baggage as a matter 
of law. Connolly v. Warren, 106 Mass. 
146, 8 Ara. Eep. 300. 

56. Neb — Gibbons v. Chicago, B. & 
Q. R. Co., 98 Neb. 696, 154 N. W. 226. 
N. Y. — Wheeler v. Oceanic Steam Nav. 
Co., 52 Hun 75, 5 N. Y. Supp. 101, 
22 N. Y. St. 590. S. C— Vlasservitch 
V. Augusta & A. E. Co., 85 S. C. 291, 
67 S. E. 306. 

57. Missouri, K. & T. E. Co. v. 
Meek, 33 Tex. Civ. App. 47, 75 S. W. 
317; Jones v. Priester, 1 White & W. 
Civ. Cas. (Tex.) §613. 

58. Ark.— Chicago, R. L & P. R. Co. 
V. Whitten, 90 Ark. 462, 119 S. W. 
835; Little Rock & H. S. W. E. Co. v. 
Record, 74 Ark. 125, 85 S. W. 421, 
109 Am. St. Eep. 67. Fla.— Brock v. 
Gale, 14 Pla. 523, 14 Am. Eep. 356. 
Ga. — Dibble v. Brown, 12 Ga. 217, 53 
Am. Dec. 460. 111. — Wingate v. Pere 
Marquette E. Co., 172 111. App. 314. 
Mass. — Doerner v. St. Louis & S. F. E. 
Co.,, 149 Mo. App. 170, 130 S. W. 62. 
N. Y. — Knieriem v. New York Cent. 
& H. E. E. Co., 109 App. Div. 709, 
96 N. Y. Supp. 602, 17 N. Y. Ann. Cas. 
415; Rawson v. Pennsylvania E. Co., 
2 Abb. Pr. (N. S.) 220; Grant v. New- 
ton,, 1 E. D. Smith 95. Ore. — Oakes 
V. Northern Pac. E. E. Co., 20 Ore. 
392, 26 Pac. 230, 23 Am. St. Eep. 126, 
12 L. R. A. 318. S. C— Vlasservitch 
V. Augusta & A. R. Co., 85 S. C. 291, 
67 S. E. 306. S. D.— House v. Chi- 
cago & N. W. R. Co., 30 S. D. 321, 
138 N. W. 809. Tenn.— Bomar v. 
Maxwell, 9 Humph. 621, 51 Am. Dec. 
682. Tex. — Texas & N. O. R. Co. v. 
Russell (Tex. Civ. App.), 97 S. W. 
1090; Missouri K. & T. R. Co. v. Meek, 
33 Tex. Civ. App. 47, 75 S. W. 317; 
Missouri Pac. E. Co. v. York, 2 Wills. 
Civ. Cas. §§638, 641. Vt.— Ouimit v. 
Henshaw, 35 Vt. 605, 84 Am. J>ee. 646. 

Vol. XXI 



168 



PASSENGERS 



that denomination, the question is one of fact."* 

5. Suits or Actions Relating to Excessive Fares and Refusal To 
Issue Transfers. — a. Actions for Penaliies. — The right to recover 
penalties imposed for the charging of excessive fares and for refusing 
to issue transfers, being purely statutory, it follows that no other 
process or procedure can be made use of to enforce the penalty than 
that prescribed in the statute."" Generally the party aggrieved may 
recover the penalty in a civil action in his own name,°^ which should 
be brought, if it is to recover a penalty for excessive charges, in the 
county where the contract arose."^ The pleading of the plaintiff should 
comply with the general rules regulating pleadings and must state a 
cause of action within the statute ;"* and the answer of the defendant 
should state what defenses he may have.'* 

The general rules relating to actions to recover penalties and for- 
feitures apply to the trial and judgment in this action.®' 



59. U. S. — Railroad Co. v. FralofE, 
100 U. S. 24, 25 L. ed. 531. lU.— Win- 
gate V. Pere Marquette E. Co., 172 111. 
App. 314. Kan. — Kansas City, Ft. S. 
& G. E. Co. V. Morrison, 34 Kan 502, 
9 Pac. 225, 55 Am. Eep. 252. N. Y. 
Merrill v. Grinnell, 30 N. Y. 594. Pa. 
Porter v. Hildebrand, 14 Pa. 129. Tex. 
Missouri, K. & T. E. Co. v. Meek, 33 
Tex. Civ. App. 47, 75 S. W. 317; Jones 
V. Priester, 1 White & W. Civ. Cas., 
§613. 

60. Reed v. Omnibus E. Co., 33 Cal. 
212. See generally the title "Penal- 
ties, Forfeitures and Fines." 

^ [a] Indorsement of Process. — Hun- 
ter V. Erie E. Co., 70 N. J. L. 101, 56 
Atl. 139. 

61. Cincinnati, S. & C. B. Co. v. 
Cook, 37 Clio St. 265. 

62. Pennsylvania Co. v. O'Connell, 
84 Ohio St. 218, 95 N. E. 773, Ann. 
Cas. 1912C, 540, contract arises in 
county where the ticket is sold and 
delivered. 

63. Nellis v. New York Cent. E. Co., 
30 N. Y. 505; Mendoza v. Metropoli- 
tan St. Ey. Co., 51 App. Div. 430, 64 
N. Y. Supp. 745 (sufficiency of com- 
plaint for penalty for refusal to issue 
transfer considered) ; Cincinnati, 8. & 
C. E. Co. V. Cook, 37 Ohio St. 265. 

[a] That the plaintiff was a pas- 
senger on the defendant's cars or that 
the ticket purchased was used need 
not be stated in a complaint for a 
penalty for excessive charge when the 
statute does not impose this as a 
condition. Cincinnati, S. & C. E. Co. 
V. Cook, 37 Ohio St. 265. 

rb] Where the bad faith of plain- 
tiff in paying excessive fare merely 

Vol, XXI 



to obtain the penalty is a matter of 
defense, the complaint need not nega- 
tive bad faith. Cincinnati, S. & C. E. 
Co. V. Cook, 37 Ohio St. 265. Com'pare 
present statute in Ohio. 

Joinder of Causes of Action. — See 
14 Standard Proc. 699, note 46; also 
14 Standard Peoc. 709. 

64. See generally the title "An- 
swers." 

[a] In an action for penalty for 
refusal to issue a transfer, an answer 
which sets up an alternative route 
must state that transfers are issued 
on such route. Holmes v. Interurban 
St. Ry. Co., 92 N. Y. Supp. 57. 

65. See generally the title "Pen- 
alties, Forfeitures and Fines." 

[a] Variance. — In actions of this 
character, a strict conformity of the 
proof to the pleadings is required. 
Stevenson v. New York City R. Co., 
104 N. Y. Supp. 866, where the com- 
plaint alleged a refusal to give a 
transfer on December seventh and the 
proof showed the date to be July sev- 
enth, the variance was fatal. See also 
Catalano v. International E. Co., 145 
N. Y. Supp. 1005 (holding variance 
to be immaterial where plaintiff al- 
leged that the defendant subjected it- 
self to a penalty under a certain stat- 
ute which had been incorporated into 
another statute) ; and generally the 
title "Variance and Failure of Proof." 

[b] Questions of Law and Fact. 
Whether the carrier is guilty of gross 
negligence in its manner of informing 
its conductors of a change in tariff ig 
a question of fact. King «. Syracuse 
L. S. & N. E. Co., 131 N. T. Supp! 



PASSENGERS 



169 



b. Injunction.^^ — In a proper ease a carrier of passengers may be 
enjoined from charging excessive rates."' 



878. See generally the title "Province 
of Judge and Jury." 

66. As to injunctions generally, see 
the title "Injunctions." 

67. Westwood v. Dedham & F. St. 
R. Co., 209 Mass. 213, 95 N. E. 81; 
Attorney General v. Chicago & N. W. 
Ey. Co., 35 Wis. 425. 

[a] Joinder of Parties Plaintiff. 



In an action to enjoin a street rail- 
road from charging a, fare in excess 
of the amount agreed on in the grant 
by the supervisors of the right to lay 
tracks, the abutting property owners 
cannot join with the township author- 
ities as parties plaintiff. Millcreek v. 
Erie E. T. St. R. Co., 209 Pa. 300, 58 
Atl. 613. 



PASTURE. — See Animals. 



Vol. XXI 



PATENTS 

By the Editorial Staff. 



I. REVIEW OP DECISIONS OP PATENT OPPIOE, 173 

A. In General, 173 

B. Conclusiveness of Ifetision, 173 

1. Ees Judicata, 173 

2. Collateral Attack, 174 

C. Remedies To Review, etc., 175 

1. Appeal, 175 

a. In General, 175 

b. Taking and Perfecting, 176 

c. Proceedings in Appellate Court, 177 

2. Bill in Equity, 178 

a. In General, 178 

b. Jurisdiction and Venue, 179 

c. Time To Bring Suit, 179 

d. Parties, 179 

e. Pleading, 179 

f. Hearing and Determination, 179 

g. Costs, 180 

3. Mandamus, 180 

XL SALE, ASSIGNMENT OR LICENSE, 180 

A. Remedies Respecting, 180 

1. Action for Damages, 180 

2. Specific Performance, 181 

3. Injunction, 182 

4. Rescission and Cancellation, 182 

B. Jurisdiction of Proceedi/ngs Based on, 182 

1. In General, 182 

2. Particular Cases, 183 

m. INPRINGEMENT, 184 

A. Remedies, 184 

1. At Law, 184 

2. Zw Equity, 184 

B. Jurisdiction as Between State and Federal Courts, 185 

C. Venue, 187 
D,, Parties, 187 

1. Plaintiff, 187 

Vol. XZI 



PATENTS 171 

a. In General, 187 

b. By Patentee, 187 

c. By Assignee, 188 

d. By Licensee, 189 

2. Defendant, 189 

a. /w General, 189 

b. Corporations and Their Agents, 190 

c. r/ie United States and Its Officers, 190 

3. Joinder of Parties, 191 

a. Plaintiff, 191 

b. Defendant, 191 

E. Joinder of Causes, 192 

F. Pleading, 193 

1. 7» ^c^ioMs fflf iow, 193 

a. 7m General, 193 

b. Declaration or Complaint, 193 

c. Answer or Plea, 194 
(I.) In General, 194 

(II.) Tfee General Issue With, or Without No- 
tice, 194 
(A.) In General f 194 
(B.) Contents of Notict, 195 
(C.) Time of Service, 196 
(D.) Form of Notice,. 196 
(B.) Permission To Serve, 19T 
(F.) Verification, 197 
(G.) TTfltwer of Notice, 197 

2. 2m Suits in Equity, 197 

a. The Bill, 197 

(I.) Zm General, 197 

(II.) ParfeMZar Ai;erme»fs, 197 

(III.) Prayer, 200 

(IV.) Verification, 200 

(V.) Profert of Patent, 200 

(VI.) MwUifariausness, 201 

(VII.) Discovery, 201 
b; Demurrer or Motion To Dismiss, 202 

c. J.m«wer, 203 

(I.) 7w General, 203 

(II.) AMSwe*- Wiffe Notice, 204 

(III.) /Se^O# or CountercMm, 204 

d. Supplemental Pleadings, 205 

e. Amewdwiewfs, 205 

3. Bi7?s o/ Particulars, 206 

G. Issues, Proof and Variance, 206 
H. Tnai in Actions at Law, 207 

1. In General, 207 

Vol. XXI 



172 PATENTS 

2. Questions of Law and Fact, 207 

3. Instructions, 208 

4. Verdict, 209 

I. Hearing in Equity, 209 
J. Judgment or Decree, 210 

1. In General, 210 

2. Costs, 210 

a. Zm Actions at Law, 210 

b. Zm Suita in Equity, 211 
K. Rehearing, 211 

L, Operation and Effect of Judgment or Decree, 212 
M. Appeal, 212 

1. In General, 212 

2. Subsequent Proceedings in Lower Court, 213 
N. Injunctions, 213 

1. Zw General, 213 

2. Preliminary Injunction, 214 

a. Zw General, 214 

b. Validity of Patent Must Be Established, 216 

c. Prior Adjudication of Validity, 217 

3. Permanent Injunction, 219 

a. Zm General, 219 

b. Suspending or Dissolving, 220 

4. Violation of Injunction, 220 

IV. INFRINGEMENT OF PART OF PATENT, 221 

V. INJUNCTION AGAINST THREATENED INFRINGEMENT 

SUITS> 221 

VI. RECOVERY OF PENALTIES, 222 

A, Wrongful Marking of Unpatented Article, 222 

B. Unauthorized Use of Patented Design, 222 

Vn. ACTIONS FOR REFUSA^. TO FURNISH COPIES OF PAT. 

ENT, 223 

VIII. CANCELLATION OF PATEHT, 223 

A. By the Government, 223 

B. By Individuals, 224! 

1. In General, 224 

2. Injunction, 225 

3. Pleading, 225 

Vol. ZXI 



PATENTS 



173 



a. Bill, 225 

b. Answer, 225 

4. Demurrer or Motion To Dismiss, 225 

5. Hearing, 226 

6. Decree, 226 

CROSS-REFERENCES: 



Copyright Proceedings; 
Mines and Minerals; 



Public Lands; 

Trade-Marks and Trade Names. 



For forms, see 9 Standabd Peoc. 943, et seq. 

As to presumptions, mode of proof and production of evidence, sec 
Encyclopedia op Evidence, title "Patents." 

For further references and cross-references, see the index to this 
work and the cross-references throughout this article. 



I. REVIEW OP DECISIONS OF PATENT OFFICE. — A. In 

General. — Decisions of the patent office are within certain prescribed 
limitations, reviewable by the courts.^ The proper tribunals to make 
such review are the federal courts designated by act of congress," no 
jurisdiction in the matter resting in the state courts,^ or in the patent 
official himself.* 

B. Conclusiveness of Decision.^ — 1. Res Judicata. — A valid de- 
cision of the patent commissioner ought, on principle, to enjoy the 
same degree of conclusiveness as a res judicata, as the determinations 
of other officials when acting, in a judicial or quasi judicial capacity.* 



1. Eeekendorfer v. Faber, 92 U. S. 
347, 23 L. ed. 719; National Mach. 
Corp. V. Benthall Mach. Co., 241 Fed. 
72, 154 C. C. A. 72; American Grapho- 
phone Co. v. Gimbel Bros., 234 Fed. 
344. 

[a] Constitutionality of Statute. 
While the commissioner of patents is, 
generally apeaking, an executive offi- 
cer, yet, in deciding whether or not a 
patent shall issue, or on questions of 
interference between contesting claim- 
ants, he exereiBes judicial functions, 
and it is within the constitutional pow- 
er of congress to provide for the re- 
vision of Mb decisions in such matters 
by a judicial tribunal. United States 
V. Duell, 172 U. S. 576, 19 Sup. Ct. 
286, 43 L. ed. 559. 

2. Eeekendorfer v. Faber, 92 TJ. 8. 
347, 23 L. ed. 719; National Mach. 
Corp. V. Benthall Mach. Co., 241 Fed. 
72, 154 0. C. A. 72; Hayes-Toung Tie 
Plato Co. V. St. Louis Transit Co., 137 



Fed. 80, 70 C. C. A. 1; American 
Graphophone Co. v. Gimbel Bros., 234 
Fed. 344; Wilkins Shoe-Button Fastener 
Co. V. Webb, 89 Fed. 982; Minneapolis 
Harvester Wks. v. McCormick Harvest- 
ing-Mach. Co., 28 Fed. 565. 

3. Cowan v. Mitchell, 11 Heisk. 
(Tenn.) 87. 

4. Ex parte Simpson, 22 Fed. Cas. 
No. 12,878; Ex parte Larowe, 14 Fed. 
Cas. No. 8,093; In re Hoeveler, 21 App. 
Cas. (D. C.) 107. 

[a] OorrectioD of Patent. — The com- 
missioner of patents has no jurisdic- 
tion to alter a patent, and a cer- 
tificate of correction issued by him is 
wholly void. Edison Electric Light 
Co. V. United States Electric Lighting 
Co., 52 Fed. 300, 3 C. C. A. 83. 

5. On appeal, see infra, I, C, 1, c. 
On reriew by bill in equity see infra, 

I, C, 2, f. 

' 6. Mahn ». Harwood, 112 U. S. 354, 
5 Sup. Ct. 174, 6 Sup. Ct. 451, 28 L. 

Vol. X3a 



174 



PATENTS 



And such undoubtedly would be its effect in the absence of controlling 
statutory provisions,^ which render the patent merely prima facie 
evidence of its validity,* and permit defendant in infringement suits to 
raise, by way of defense,^ questions such as that of patentability,^" 
invention,^^ priority,^^ and abandonment.^' 

2. Collateral Attack." — The commissioner's decision is not sub- 
ject to collateral attack,^" except upon the usual grounds of fraud, 
or want of jurisdiction,^^ subject to the limitation already noticed, 
that in an infringement suit it is only prima facie evidence as to cer- 
tain matters.^^ 



ed. 665; Allen v. Blunt, 3 Story 742, 
1 Fed. Cas. No. 216. 

Res judicata see generally the titles 
"Judgments;" "Ees Judicata." 

7. Morgan v. Daniels, 153 U. S. ISO, 
14 Sup. Ct. 772, 38 L. ed. 657; U. S. 
Bev. St., §4920, 5 Fed. Ann. St., §567. 

8. National Mach. Corp. v. Benthall 
Maoh. Co., 241 Fed. 72, 154 C. C. A. 
72; Gold V. Gold, 237 Fed. 84, 150 C. 
C. A. 286; Packard v. Lacing-Stud Co., 
70 Fed. 66, 16 C. C. A. 639; William- 
son V. Electric Service Supplies Co., 
236 Fed. 353; Meccano v. Wagner, 234 
Fed. 912; Maxwell Steel Vault Co. v. 
National Casket Co., 205 Fed. 515; 
Sands v. Wardwell, 3 Cliff. 277, 21 Fed. 
Cas. No. 12,306; Potter v. Holland, 4 
Blatchf. 238, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 11,330; 
Allen V. Blunt, 3 Story 742, 1 Fed. Cas. 
No. 216. 

[a] To overcome the decision of the 
patent office as to priority in an inter- 
ference proceeding, which is afterwards 
called in question in an infringement 
suit, the evidence must be of a most 
convincing and satisfactory nature. 
Eeed v. Cropp Concrete Mach. Co., 239 
Fed. 869, 152 C. C. A. 653 (reversing 
218 Fed. 643); Smart v. Wright, 227 
Fed. 84, 141 C. C. A. 632; Computing 
Scale Coi v. Standard Computing Scale 
Co., 195 Fed. 508, 115 C. C. A.. 418. 

[b] In case of admitted error, where 
the patent office officials acknowledge 
that the patent was granted inadvert- 
ently to the wrong party, the usual 
principle that it is prima facie valid 
is inapplicable. Safe-Cabinet Co. v. 
Globe-Wernieke Co., 242 Fed. 497, 155 
C. C. A. 273. 

[c] An extension may strengthen 
the presumption of patentability. Ev- 
arts f. Ford, 8 Fed. Cas. No. 4,574; 
Cook V. Ernest, 1 Woods 165, 6 Fed. 
Cas. No. 3,155. 

9. See infra, III. 

10. Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 
U. 8. 186, 14 Sup. Ct. 310, 38 L. ed. 

Vol. XZI 



121; Duff V. Sterling Pump Co., 107' 
U. S. 636, 2 Sup. Ct. 487, 27 L. ed. 
517; Cohn v. United States Corset Co., 
93 U. S. 366, 23 L. ed. 907; Coffin v. 
Ogden, 18 Wall. <U. S.) 120, 21 L. ed. 
821; Seymour v. Osborne, 11 Wall. (U. 
S.) 516, 20 L. ed. 33. 

11. Ashcroft V. Boston & L. E. Co., 
97 tr. S. 189, 24 L. ed. 982; American 
Graphophone Co. v. Gimbel Bros., 234 
Fed. 344; Hubel v. Tucker, 24 Fed. 701, 
23 Blatchf. 297. 

12. Smith V. Goodyear Dental Vul- 
canite Co., 93 U. S. 486, 23 L. ed. 
952; Gloucester Isinglass & G. Co. v. 
Brooks, 19 Fed. 426; Whipple v. Miner, 
15 Fed. 117. 

13. Woodbury Patent Planing Mach. 
Co. V. Keith, 101 IT. S. 479, 25 L. ed. 
939; United States Eifle, etc. Co. «. 
Whitney Arms Co., 14 Blatch. 94, 28 
Fed. Cas. No. 16,793, afflrmed, 118 
U. S. 22, 6 Sup. Ct. 950, 30 L. ed. 
53. 

14. See generally 15 Standard Pewo. 
377. 

15. Wilkins Shoe-Button Fastener 
Co. V. Webb, 89 Fed. 982; Dorsey Har- 
\ ester Revolving Eake Co. v. Marsh, 
9 Phila. 395, 7 Fed. Cas. No. 4,014; 
Blackford v. Wilder, 28 App. Cas. (D. 
C.) 585. ^ 

[a] The patent office Is a special 
tribunal intrusted with full powers in 
the_ matter of granting patents, and its 
action based on mere errors of judg- 
ment is not subject to collateral re- 
view by the courts. United States v. 
American Bell Tel. Co., 167 U. S. 224, 
17 Sup. Ct. 809, 42 L. ed. 144. 

16. Garrard v. Silver Peak Mines, 
82 Fed. 578, affirmed, 94 Fed. 983, 36 
C. C. A. 603; In re Mattulath, 37 App. 
Gas. (D. C.) 410; Moore v. United 
States, 33 App. Cas. (D. C.) 597; United 
States V. Seymour, ID Aptk Cas. (D. 0.) 
294. . ' 

17. See mpra, I, B, 2. 



PATENTS 



175 



C. Remedies to Review, etc. — 1. Appeal. — a. In General. — Any- 
party aggrieved by an adverse decision^^ of the commissioner of pat- 
ents^® in a proceeding to obtain a patent or the reissuance of a pat- 
ent,^" or in an interference proceeding,''^ may appeal therefrom to the 
court of appeals of the District of Columbia.^^ But from such latter 
tribunal no further appeal lies to the United States supreme eourt.^^ 

Tie decision must be final, and on the merits, for no appeal lies from 
mere interlocutory orders or rulings of the commissioner,^* particularly 



18. Elsom V. Bonner, 46 App. Cas. 
(D. C.) 230. 

[a] A ruling affirming the patent- 
ability of an invention, not appealable. 
Elsom V. Bonner, 46 App. Cas. (D. -C.) 
230; Sobey v. Holsclaw, 28 App. Cas. 
(D. C.) 65. 

[b] One in -wlipae favor an inter- 
ference proceeding has been decided 
cannot appeal because the decision 
rested on one issue, a second issue be- 
ing held a structural not a patentable 
difference from the first issue. Shella- 
berger v. Schnabel, 10 App. Cas. (D. C.) 
145. 

19. Westinghouse v. Duncan, 2 App. 
Cas. (D. C.) 131. 

[a] From a decision of the primary 
examiner in the patent office, no appeal 
lies. Westinghouse v. Duncan, 2 App. 
Cas. (D. C.) 131. 

20. Elsom V. Bonner, 46 App. Cas. 
(D. C.) 230; Carlin v. Goldberg, 45 
App. Cas. (D. C.) 540; Cosper v. Gold, 
34 App. Cas. (D. C.) 184; In re Full- 
agar, 32 App. Gas. (D. C.) 222. 

21. Elsom V. Bonner, 46 App. Cas. 
(D. C.) 230; Carlin v. Goldberg, 45 
App. Cas. (D. C.) 540; Cosper v. Gold, 
34 App. Cas. (D. C.) 194; In re 
Fullagar, 32 App. Cas. (D. C.) 222. 

[a] Prior to the act of 1893, there 
was no appeal from the commissitjner 's 
decision in an interference, the only 
remedy being a bill in equity in the 
United States circuit court. Butler v. 
Shaw, 21 Fed. 321. 

22. Carlin v. Goldberg, 45 App. Cas. 
(D. C.) 540. 

[a] The appeal is a legal, not an 
equitable proceeding. Sobey v. Hols- 
claw, 28 App. Cas. (D. C.) 65; Doyle 
V. McBoberts, 10 App. Cas. (D. C.) 
445. 

[b] The United States is not author- 
ized by this statute to appeal. United' 
States V. American Bell Tel. Co., 167 
U. S. 224, 17 Sup. Ct. 809, 42 L. ed. 
144. 

When mandamus and not appeal 
proper remedy, see mfra, I, C, 3. 



23. Durham v. Seymour, 161 U. S. 
235, 16 Sup. Ct. 452, 40 L. ed. 682; 
Bousseau v. Brown, 21 App. Cas. (D. C.) 
73. 

24. Carlin v. Goldberg, 45 App. Cas. 
(D. C.) 540; In re Bastian, 44 App. 
Cas. (D. C.) 425; Mann v. Brown, 43 
App. Cas. (D. C.) 457; Universal Motor 
Truck Co. V. Universal Motor Co., 41 
App. Cas. (D. C.) 261; In re Mygatt, 
40 App. Cas. (D. C.) 32; Cosper v. 
Gold, 34 App. Cas. (D. C.) 194; In re 
Fullagar, 32 App. Cas. (D. C.) 222; 
United States v. Allen, 22 App. Cas. 
(D. C.) 56; Westinghouse v. Duncan, 2 
App. Cas. (D. C.) 131. 

l^a] In an interference proceeding 
only the decision on the question of 
priority is appealable. Wilson v. El- 
lis, 42 App. Casi (D. C.) 555; Eice v. 
Schutte, 38 App. Cas. (D. C.) 175; 
Arbetter v. Lewis, 34 App. Cas. (D. 
C.) 491; Lecroix v. Tyberg, 33 App. 
Cas. <D. C.) 586. 

[b] A motion to dissolve an inter- 
ference <1) before the final hearing of 
the question of priority, and before the 
case is ready for such hearing, is an 
interlocutory proceeding and a de- 
cision thereon is not appealable. Car- 
lin V. Goldberg, 45 App. Cas. (D. C.) 
540; Griffin v. Young, 44 App. Cas. 
(D. C.) 210; Cosper v. Gold, 34 App. 
Cas. (D. C.) 194; Allen v. United 
States ex rel. Lowry, 26 App. Cas. 
(D. C.) 8. (2) But when such motion 
is made at a proper time and is sus- 
tained, this decision may be regarded, 
in a proper case, as a formal award 
of priority and appealable. United 
States ex rel. Scott v. Moore, 39 App. 
Cas. (D. C.) 36; Cosper v. Gold, 36 
App. Cas. (D. C.) 302. 

[c] An award of priority in an in- 
terference between several parties is 
a final judgment from which any or 
all of the unsuccessful parties may 
appeal. Browne v. Dyson, 38 App. 
Cas. <D. C.) 5. 

[d] A denial of motion for refer- 
ence to the examiner with directions 

Vol. XXL 



176 



PATENTS 



those involving mere matters of practice and procedure in the patent 
office.^" 

b. Taking and Perfecting. — Strict compliance with the statute is 
necessary in taking and perfecting the appeal.^* It must be done 
within the prescribed time,^^ and upon proper notice to the commis- 
sioner of patents.^* A specific statement^' of the party's reasons for 
appealing must be filed in the patent office,'" and he must, moreover, 
provide the court with certified copies of all the original papers and 
evidence in the case.'^ It is incumbent upon the commissioner to file 
a statement of the grounds for his decision.'^ 



to declare an interference is not ap- 
pealable. In re Bastian, 44 App. Gas. 
(D. C.) 425; Westinghouae v. Ihincan, 
2 App. Cas. (D. C.) 131. 

[ej From denial of motion for re- 
hearing, no appeal. Boss v. Loewer, 9 
App. Cas. (D. C.) 563. 

25. United States v. Allen, 22 App. 
Cas. (D. C.) 56; In re Fraseh, 20 App. 
Cas. (D. C.) 298. 

26. Carlin v. Goldberg, 45 App. Cas. 
(D. C.) 540. 

27. In re Hien, 166 U. S. 432, 17 
Sup. Ct. 624, 41 L. ed. 1066. 

[a] Forty days is fixed by rule 20 
of the appellate court (1), withiu 
which to appeal {In re Hien, 166 U. S. 
432, 17 Sup. Ct. 624, 41 L. ed. 1066), 
(2) and the time begins to run from 
the date of the ruling or order. Bur- 
ton V. Bentley, 14 App. Cas. (D. C.) 
471. 

[b] By filing a second application 
for the 'same invention, the appellant 
cannot work an extension of the time 
to appeal. Appeal of Barratt, 14 App. 
Cas. (D. C.) 255. 

28. 16 U. S. St. at L. 205; U. S. 
Rev. St., §4912; 8 U. S. Comp. St., 
1916, §9457. 

29. Blackinton v. Douglass, 1 MeA. 
Pat. Cas. 622, 3 Fed. Cas. No. 1,470. 

[a] Such reasonable certainty as 
will satisfy an intelligent mind is re- 
quired. Blackinton v. Douglass, 1 
McA. Pat. Cas. 622, 3 Fed. Cas. No. 
1,470. 

[bj An assignment is too vague (1) 
which avers merely that the commis- 
sioner "erred in many material re- 
spects" {In re Fraseh, 27 App. Cas. 
[D. C] 25), or (2) states that the de- 
cision is against the evidence and the 
weight of the evidence (Blackinton «. 
Douglass, 1 McA. Pat. Cas. 622, 3 Fed. 
Cas. No. 1,470), or (3) "that the de- 
cision is in opposition to a clear ap- 
prehension of the merits of the case." 

Vol. XZI 



In re Winslow, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 17,879. 
[c] Amendment to make specific, 
proper. Horine v. Wende, 29 App. 
Cas. (D. C.) 415. 

30. Greenough v. Clark, 10 Fed. Cam. 
No. 5,784. 

[a] The Filing of the Beasons of 
Appeal Is Essentially the Appeal It- 
self.-— The judge can judicially know 
nothing of the case until the ag- 
grieved party presents to him his peti- 
tion for revision on appeal, and this 
the latter is not authorized to do until 
after an adverse decision, after he 
has notified the commissioner of his 
appeal, and after his reasons of ap- 
peal are filed. Greenough v. Clark, 10 
Fed. Cas. No. 5,784. 

31. 16 IT. S. St. at L. 205; U. S. 
Eev. St., §4913; 8 U. S. Comp. St., 
1916., §9458; In re Jackson, 13 Fed. 
Cas. No. 7,126; Howell v. Hess, 28 
App. Cas. (D. C.) 167; In r-e Draw- 
baugh's Appeal, 9 App. Cas. (D. C.) 

[a] Immaterial affidavits, such as 
those refused or not considered by the 
commissioner in arriving at his de- 
cision, are not properly included in 
appellant's record on appeal. In re 
Jackson, 13 Fed. Cas. No. 7,126; In re 
Merrill, 41 App. Cas. (D. C.) 294. 

fb] Additional affidavits will not 
be received to correct or contradict the 
records of the patent office, but may 
be received in explanation of a mate- 
rial change in an exhibit occurring 
subsequent to the appeal, when neces- 
sary to a correct determination of an 
issue in the case. Blackford v. Wilder. 
21 App. Cas. (D. C.) 1. 

32. 16 U. S. St. at L. 205; U. 8. 
Bev. St., §4913; 8 U. S. Comp. St., 1916, 
§9458; In m Henry, 11 Fed. Cas. No. 
6,371; Chandler «. Ladd, 5 Fed. Cas. 
No. 2,593. 

[a] No reply will be permitted to 
be filed to the grounds of the com- 



PATENTS 



177 



e. Proceedings in Appellate Court. — Notice of the time and place 
of hearing must be given by the court to the commissioner, and by 
him to all interested parties,^' and if the appellant fails to appear 
and argue the ease, or file briefs in support thereof, the court will, 
on motion, affirm the commissioner's decision.^* Likewise in a very 
clear case the court may on appellee's motion affirm the decision with- 
out a hearing, on the facts disclosed by the record.^^ 

Hearing andi Decision. — The hearing is confined to the points set forth 
in the reasons for appeal,'* and no questions will be considered which 
were not raised below.*' E|Ulings on matters of practice will not be 
disturbed,*^ nor will discretionary decisions on matters of fact be in- 
quired into unless such discretion is clearly abused.^' The decision 
of the commissioner may be revised in a summary way by the appel- 
late court on the evidence produced before the commissioner.*" At the 
hearing the commissioner, or any of the examiners, under oath, may 
be interrogated by the appellant or the court on the principles of the 



missioner's refusal to grant a patent 
for an alleged invention. In re Aiken, 
1 Fed. Gas. No. 108. 

[b] Whether the appeal is from a 
single application or an interference, 
the commissioner must file a statement 
of his reasons for the decision. In re 
Henry, 11 Fed. Gas. No. 6,371. 

33. 16 IT. S. St. at L. 205; U. S. 
Eev. St., §4913; 8 U. S. Comp. St., 
1916, §9458. 

34. Peckham v. Price, 26 App. Gas. 
(D. C.) 556. 

35. Jones v. Starr, 26 App. Gas. 
(D. C.) 64. 

36. 16 U. S. St. at L. 205; Tj. S. 
Eev. St., §4914; 8 U. S. Gomp. St., 
1916, §9459; Sturtevant v. Greenough, 
23 Fed. Gas. No. 13,579; Burlew v. 
O'Neil, 4 Fed. Gas. No. 2,167; Arnold 
V. Bishop, 1 Fed. Gas. No. 553; In re 
Aiken, 1 Fed. Gas. No. 107; In re 
Gonklin, 1 MacArthur (D. C.) 375. 

37. Smith v. Flickenger, 22 Fed. Gas. 
No. 13,047; In re Bishop, 1 McA. Pat. 
Gas. 519, 3 Fed. Gas. No. 1,439; Allen 
V. Alter, 1 Fed. Gas. No. 212; Field 
«. Colman, 40 App. Gas. (D. C.) 598; 
Bower v. Gray, 40 App. Gas. (D. G.) 
483; Leonard v. Horton, 40 App. C.as. 
(D. GO 22; Manlv v. Williams, 37 
App. Gas. (D. G.) 194; In re Heinz, 
34 App. Gas. (D. C.) 187; Lecroix v. 
Tyberg, 33 App. Gas. (D. G.) 586; 
McFarland v. Watson, 33 App. Gas. 
(D. C.) 445. 

38. Spear v. Aljbott, 22 Fed. Gas. 
No. 13,222; In re Ghambers, 5 Fed. 
Gas. No. 2,581; Dalton v. Wilson, 44 
App. Gas. (D. G.) 249; Field v. Gol- 
man, 40 App. Gas. (D. C.) 598; Phillips 



V. Sensenich, 31 App. Gas. (D. 0.) 
159. ' 

[a] Ruling on amendment of pre- 
liminary statement, not reviewable un- 
less abuse of discretion appears. War- 
rington V. Gombs, 41 App. Gas. (D. C.) 
568; Thomas v. Weintraub, 38 App. 
Gas. (D. C.) 281; Cross v. Phillips, 14 
App. Gas. (D. C.) 228. 

39. Hathaway v. .Golman, 46 App. 
Gas. (D. C.) 40; Elsom v. Bonner, 46 
App. Gas. (D. G.) 230; Cheatham v. 
Collins, 43 App. Cas. (D. G.) 16; Gam- 
meter V. Thropp, 42 App. Gas. (D. G.) 
564; Lorimer v. Keith, 41 App. Cas. 
(D. C.) 562; Sobey v. Holsclaw, 28 
App. Gas. (D. C.) 65; Davis v. Gar- 
rett, 28 App. Cas. (D. G.) 9; Jones 
V. Starr, 26 App. Cas. (D. C.) 64; 
In re Neill, H App. Gas. (D. C.) 
584. 

[a] Ruling on sufficiency of a dis- 
closure by an applicant to support the 
claims made the issue of an inter- 
ference. Hubbard v. Berg, 40 App. 
Cas. (D. C.) 577; Hewitt v. Weintraub, 
38 App. Cas. (D. G.) 548; Gold v. 
Gold, 34 App. Cas. (D. C.) 229; Bos- 
sart V. Pohl, 31 App. Gas. (D. C.) 218. 

[b] An Award of Priority.— Wick- 
ers V. McKee, 29 App. Cas. (D. G.) 
21; Bourn v. Hill, 27 App. Cas. (D. C.) 
291; Ball V. Flora, 26 App. Cas. (D. G.) 
394; Hien v. Buhoup, 11 App. Gas. 
(I>. C.) 293; Hill v. Parmelee, 9 App. 
Gas. (D. G.) 503. 

40. 16 TJ. S. St. at L. 205; TJ. S. 
Eev. St., §4914; 8 U. S. Comp. St., 
1916, §9459; Ex parte Sanders, 21 Fed. 
Cas. No. 12,292; In re Fultz, 9 Fed. 

Vol XXI 



178 



PATENTS 



thing for wtich a patent is demanded.*;' A party to an interference 
will not be permitted to narrow a claim to meet the exigencies of a 
particular situation.*^ Except in extreme cases where palpable error 
has been committed,*^ a case will not be remanded for further pro- 
ceedings by the patent oiHce,** especially after an affirmanee,*^ even 
though the court may entertain a doubt as to the correctness of the 
ultimate fact which its decision affirms.*' 

2. Bill in Equity. — a. In General. — Even before the remedy by 
appeal has been exhausted/' a bill in equity*^ to review the commis- 
sioner's decision will lie at the instance of one who is aggrieved by 
the denial of,*' or the refusal to reissue"" a patent. In such a proceed- 
ing an injunction will not be granted restraining the issuance of a 



Cas. No. 0,156; Eobinson v. Seelinger, 
25 App. Cas. (D. C.) 237. 

41. 16 U. a St. at L. 205; V. S. 
Eev. St., §4913; 8 U. S. Comp. St., 
1916, §9458; In re Seely, 21 Fed. Cas. 
No. 12,632; Eichardson v. Hicks, 20 
Fed. Cas. No. 11,783; Perry v. Coruell, 
19 Fed. Cas. No. 11,001. 

42. Milmoe v. Holly, 46 App. Cas. 
(I>. 0.) 455; Monte v. Dunkley, 46 
App. Cas. (D. C.) 70; Murphy v. 
Cooper, 45 App. Cas. (D. C.) 307; 
Kirby v. Clements, 44 App. Cas. (D. C.) 
12; Eotter v. Hodgkinson, 43 App. 
Cas. (D. C.) 254; Leonard v. Hojrton, 
40 App. Cas. (D. C.) 22; Geltz v. 
Crozier, 32 App. Cas. (D. C.) 324. 

[a] But where the difference in the 
inventions clearly appears, the claims 
will be given a reasonable interpre- 
tation consistent with the specifieation 
in which they originated, to the end 
that the real inventor may be given 
the award of priority.- Murphy v. 
Cooper, 45 App. Cas. (D. C.) 307. 

43. Phillips V. Sensenich, 31 App. 
Cas. (D. C.) 159; Podlesak t;. Meln- 
nerney, 26 App. Cas. (D. C.) 399. 

44. Ex parte Sanders, 21 Fed. Cas. 
No. 12,292; De Ferranti v. Lindmark, 
32 App. Cas. (D. C.) 6. See Eichards 
V. Meissner, 24 App. Cas. (D. C.) 305. 

45. Nielson v. Bradshaw, 16 App. 
Cas. (D. C.) 92. 

46. Arnold V. Bishop, 1 Fed. Cas. 
No. 553; In re Willard, 45 App. Cas. 
(D. C.) 549; In re Harbeck, 39 App. 
Cas. (D. C.) 555; In re Moore, 38 App. 
Cas. (D. C.) 276. 

[a] In affirming an award of 
priority in an interference, the court, 
though it is in doubt as to the patent- 
ability of the invention, will not re- 
mand with directions to try that ques- 

Vol. XXI 



tion. Elsom v. Bonner, 46 App. Cas. 
(D. C.) 230; Hathaway v. Colman, 4'6 
App. Cas. (D. C.) 40; SlinglufE v. 
Sweet, 45 App. Cas. (D. C.) 302; 
Norling «. Hayes, 37 App. Cas. (D. C.) 
169. 

47. Prindle v. Brown, 155 Fed. 531, 
reversing 136 Fed. 616. But see Mc- 
Knight V. Metal Volatilization Co., 128 
Fed. 51; Smith v. MuUer, 75 Fed. 612; 
Kirk V. Commissiou'er of Patents, 5 
Mackey (D. C.) 229, to the effect that 
the appeal must first be exhausted. 

48. Distinguished from appeal, see 
In re Hien, 166 XJ. S. 432, 17 Sup. Ct. 
624, 41 L. ed. 1066; Butterworth v. 
Hoe, 112 U. S. 50, 5 Sup. Ct. 25, 28 
L. ed. 656; Dover v. Greenwood, 154 
Fed. 854. 

49. 16 U. S. St. at L. 205; U. S. 
Eev. St., §4915; 8 U. 8. Comp. St. 
1916, §9460; American Bell Tel. Co. v. 
United States, 68 Fed. 542, 15 C C. 
A. 569 (affirmed in 167 TJ. S. 224,' ,17 
Sup. Ct. 807, 42 L. ed. 144) ; Bernardin 
V. Northall, 77 Fed. ,849; New York 
Belting & Packing Co. v. Sibley, 15 
Fed. 886; Jones v. Starr, 26 App. Cas. 
(D. C.) 64. 

[a] Administrative Proceeding. — An 
ex parte suit under this section, is 
often merely an administrative pro- 
ceeding, a continuation of the applica- 
tion for a patent. Lewis Blind Stitch 
Co. V. Arbetter Felling Mach. Co., 181 
Fed. 974. 

[b] But one who has been granted 
a patent cannot resort to a bill in 
equity to compel issuance thereof. But- 
terworth V. United States, 112 U. S. 
50, 5 Sup. Ct. 25, 28 L. ed. 656; Moore 
V. Heany, 34 App. Cas. (D. C.) 31. 

50. Ingersoll v. Holts, 104 Fed. 

682. 



PATENTS 



179 



patent to an adverse party making claim therefor.** 

b. Jurisdiction and Venue. — Jurisdiction over such suits resides 
in the federal district court^^ of any district whereof the defendant 
is an inhabitant.^^ 

e. Time To Bring Suit. — A bill in equity to obtain a patent must 
be brought within the time limited for completing an application 
after the dismissal of the appeal from the commissioner's decision, un- 
less delay is unavoidable.** 

d. Pariies. — The bill may be filed in the name of the applicant,"* 
or of an assignee,*^ and against the commissioner,*'' or an adverse claim- 
ant,** or -an assignee of the -latter.** 

e. Pleading. — The bill, whether far a patent or a reissue, must 
fully disclose the facts upon which the invention is claimed.'" 

It is improper to join in one bill an application for a patent as against 
an adverse party, with an application for a reissue of a patent against 
the commissioner."* 

f . Hearing and Determination. — The hearing on a bill in equity 
to obtain a patent is governed by the general equity rules.'^ The com- 



51. Ulingworth v. Atha, 42 Fed. 
141. 

[a] The remedy of the applicant if 
successful, is a proceeding in equity 
against the patentee for infringement. 
Jones V. Starr, 26 App. Gas. (D. C.) 
64. 

52. See Bernardin v. Northall, 77 
Fed. 849, and Vermont Farm Maoh. Co. 
17. Marble, 20 Fed. 117. 

53. Butterworth v. Hill, 114 U. S. 
128, 5 Sup. Ct. 796, 29 L. ed. 119; 
Thoma v. Perri, 205 Fed. 632; Lewis 
Blind Stitch Co. v. Arbetter Felling 
Mach. Co., 181 Fed. 974. 

[a] When the suit is against the 
commissioner of patents it must be 
brought in the District of Columbia, 
unless he appears in the suit. Schmertz 
Wire Glass Co. v. Western Glass Co., 
178 Fed. 973. 

54. U. 8. Eev. St., §4894, amended 
Mar. 3, 1897, ch. 391, §4, and July 6, 
1916, ch. 225, §1; 16 V. S. St. at L. 
202, 29 U. S. St. at L. 692, 39 U. S. 
St. at L. 348; 8 U. S. Comp. St., 1916, 
§9438; In re Hien, 166 U. S. 432, 17 
Sup. Ct. 624, 41 L. ed. l/)66; Gandy 
V. Marble, 122 U. S. 432, 7 Sup. Ct. 
1290, 30 L. ed. 1223; American Bell 
Tel. Co. V. trnited States, 68 Fed. 542, 
15 C. C. A. 569 (affirmed in 167 U. S. 
224, 17 Sup. Ct. 807, 42 L. ed. 144); 
Wende v. Horine, 191 Fed. 620; West- 
inghouBe Electric & Mfg. Co. v. Ohio 
Brass Co., 186 Fed. 518, 

[a] A period of one year allowed. 
IT. S. Eev. St., §4894, amended Mar. I 



3, 1897, ch. 391, §4, and July 6, 1916, 
ch. 225, §1; 8 U. S. Comp. St., 1916, 
§9438. 

[b] Extension by reason of war, see 
8 IT. S. Comp. St., 1916, §9438b; Act 
of Aug. 17, 1916, eh. 350, §2. 

55. Wende v. Horine, 191 Fed. 620. 

56. Smith v. Thompson, 177 Fed. 
721. 

[a] But where the assignment does 
not authorize or request that a patent 
be issued in the name of the assignee, 
the assignor should sue, unless, per- 
haps, where the assignor fails or re- 
fuses to bring suit. Wende v. Horine, 
191 Fed. 620. 

57. Kirk v. Patent Comr., 5 Mackey 
(D. C.) 229. 

[a] Joinder of the secretary of the 
interior is not necessary in such suit. 
Kirk V. Patent Comr., 5 Mackey CD. 
C.) 229. 

[b] Where there are adverse parties 
the commissioner of customs is not a 
necessary party. Graham v. Teter, 25 
Fed. 555. 

58. Graham v. Teter, 25 Fed. 555. 

59. Thoma v. Perri, 205 Fed. 632. 
[a] The Assignee Is a Necessary 

Party.— Graham v. Teter, 25 Fed, 555. 

60. Ingersoll v. Holt, 104 Fed! 682. 

61. Gold V. Gold, 181 Fed. 544. 

62. See the title "Equity Jurisdic- 
tion and Procedure." 

[a] Testimony May Be Taken Be- 
fore an Sxaminer. — In re Squire, 22 
Fed. Cas. No. 13,269. 

Vol. XXI 



180 



PATENTS 



plainant must establish his right to a patent,*^ even though the ad- 
verse party defaults,** but he is not confined to the evidence or record 
of the patent office,*" and the court may consider and determine the 
questions of priority** and patentability.*^ The court may adjudge 
that the applicant is entitled to receive a patent for his invention,** 
providing it is patentable,*^ and such adjudication, when filed in the 
patent office, will authorize the commissioner to issue a patent to the 
applicant.'" 

g. Costs. — In ex parte cases, though the commissioner' must be 
served, the costs must be paid by the applicant, whether or not the 
final decision is in his favor/^ But when there is an adverse party 
other than the commissioner the general rules as to costs should be 
followed.'^ 

3. Mandamus. — Mandamus is an appropriate remedy to compel 
the commissioner to take a necessary or proper step in a patent pro- 
ceeding,'^ but not to control him in the exercise of his judgment or 
discretion.'* 

II. SALE, ASSIGNMENT OR LICENSE. — A. Remedies Ee- 
SPECTiNG. — 1. Action for Damages. — An action for damages lies 



As to hearing in equity, see gen- 
erally the title "Heanng." 

63. Gold V. Gold, 237 Ted. 84, 150 
C. C. A. 286; Davis v. Garrett, 152 
Fed. 723. 

64. Davis v. Garrett, 152 Fed. 723. 

65. Christie v. Seybold, 55 Fed. 69, 
5 C. C. A. 33; In re Squire, 22 Fed. 
Cas. No. 13,269. 

66. Sehmertz Wire-Glass Co. v. Pitts- 
burg Plate-Glass Co., 168 Fed. 73; 
Wheaton v. Kendall, 85 Fed. 666. 

67. Gold V. Gold, 237 Fed. 84, 150 
C. C. A. 286; Hansen v. Slick, 216 
Fed. 164. 

68. 16 U. S. St. at L. 205; U. S. 
Eev. St., §4915; 8 U. 8. Comp. St., 
1916, §9460. 

69. Hill V. Wooster, 132 U. S. 693, 
10 Sup. Ct. 228, 33 L. ed. 502 {re- 
versing 22 Fed. 830); Leslie v. Tracy, 
100 Fed. 475. 

70. 16 U. S. St. at L. 205; U. S. 
Eev. St., §4915; 8 U. S. Comp. St., 
1916, §9460; Gandy v. Marble, 122 U. 
S. 432, 7 Sup. Ct. 1290, 30 L. ed. 
1223. 

71. 16 U. S. St. at L. 205; U. S. 
Rev. St., §4915; 8 U. S. Comp. St., 
1916, §9460. 

72. Butler v. Shaw, 21 Fed. 321. 
See generally the title "Costs." 

73. Mx parte Frasch, 192 U. S. 566, 
24 Sup. Ct. 424, 48 L. ed. 564. 

[a] Appeal not a proper remedy 
in such case. Ex parte Frasch, 192 

Vol. XXI 



U. S. 566, 24 Sup. Ct. 424, 48 L. ed. 
564. 

[b] To require the forwarding of 
an appeal from the primary examiner 
to the examiner in chief. United 
States V. Allen, 192 U. S. 543, 24 Sup. 
Ct. 416, 48 L. ed. 555. 

[c] To Prepare a Patent for the 
Signature of the Secretary of the In- 
terior.— Butterworth V. United States, 
112 U. 8. 50, 5 Sup. Ct. 25, 28 L. ed. 
656, affirming 3 Mackey (D. C.) 229. 

[d] To prepare certified copies of 
patent papers upon demand and pay- 
ment of the required fee. United 
States V. Hall, 7 Mackey (D. C.) 14, 
1 L. B. A. 738. 

[e] He may be compelled to de- 
clare an interference (1) which he 
has found to exist (Ewing v. United 
States ex rel. Fowler Car Co., 45 App 
Cas. [D. C] 185), but (2) he cannot 
be compelled to find an interference. 
Ewing V. United States ex rel. Fowler 
Car Co., 45 App. Cas. (D. C.) 185. 

74. United States ex rel. Ness v. 
Fisher, 223 U. S. 683, 32 Sup. Ct. 356, 
56 L. ed. 610; Butterworth v. United 
States, 112 U. S. 50, 5 Sup. Ct. 25, 
28 L. ed. 656 affirming 3 Mackey (D. 
C.) 229); HoUoway v. Whitelev, 4 
Wall. (U. S.) 522, 18 L. ed. 335; Ewing 
V. United States ex rel. Fowler Car 
Co., 45 App. Cas. (D. C.) 185; Aufiero 
V. Ewing, 44 App. Cas. (D. C.) 328; 
United States ex rel. Trussed Concrete 



PATENTS 



181 



to remedy a breach of a contract of sale" or assignments^ or license^' 
of a patent, or for fraud in inducing, the patentee to refrain from sell- 
ing his inveiftion." 

For an infringement by the licensee, the licensor may sue for breach 
of the agreement,^® or for infringement.*" 

2. Specific Performance. — "Where an action for damages*^ would 
not furnish adequate relief, the court will decree specific performance 



Steel Co. V. Ewing, 42 App. Cas. (D. 
0.) 179. 

75. Ga. — Barrett v. Verdery, 93 Ga. 
526, 21 S. E. 64. See also Kidder Press 
Mfg. Co. V. Fulton Bag & Cotton Mills, 
104 Ga. 785, 30 S. E. 965. lU.— Lord 
V. Owen, 35 111. App. 382. Ind.— Ft. 
Wayne, C. & L. E. Co. v. Haberkorn, 
15 Ind. App. 479, 44 N. E. 322. N. Y. 
Dalzell V. Fahv's Wateh Case Co., 138 
N. Y. 285, 33 N. E. 1071; Kirschmann 
V. Lediard, 61 Barb. 573; MeDougal v. 
Fogg, 2 Bosw. 387. 

76. Ga. — Barrett v. Verdery, 93 Ga. 
526, 21 S. E. 64; Hornsby v. Butts, 85 
Ga. 694, 11 S. B. 846. HI.— Lord v. 
Owen, 35 111. App. 382. Ind.— Ft. 
Wayne, C. & L. E. Co. v. Haberkorn, 
15 Ind. App. 479, 44 N. E. 322. Mass. 
Weed V. Draper, 104 Mass. 28. Mo. 
Standard Fireproofing Co. v. St. Louis 
Expanded Metal F. Co., 177 Mo. 559, 
70 S. W. 1008. N. J.— Johnson v. 
Johnson E. Signal Co., 57 N. J. Eq. 
79, 40 Atl. 193. N. Y.— Warth 
V. Liebovitz, 179 N. Y. 200, 71 N. E. 
734; Kirschmann v. Lediard, 61 Barb. 
573. Tex. — Clark v. Cyclone Woven 
Wire Fence Co., 22 Tex. Civ. App. 41, 
54 S. W. 392. Vt.— Vaughan v. Porter, 
18 Vt. 266. 

77. Me. — Elmer v. Pennel, 40 Me. 
430. Minn.- Wilson v. Hentges, 26 
Minn. 288, 3 N. W. 338. N. Y.— Mont- 
gomery V. Waterbury, 2 Misc. 145, 21 
N. Y. Supp. 631, 50 N. Y. St. 521, af- 
firmed, 142 N. Y. 652, 37 N. E. 569. 
Vt. — Sherman v. Champlain Transp. 
Co., 31 Vt. 162. 

[a} For Unpaid Boyalties. — ^U. S. 
Sea Gull Specialty Co. v. Humphrey, 
242 Fed. 271, 155 C. C. A. Ill; Sproull 
V. Pratt & Whitney Co., 97 Fed. 807; 
Pope Mfg. Co. V. Owsley, 27 Fed. 100. 
la. — Boss V. Dowden Mfg. Ca, 147 
Iowa 180, 123 N. W. 182. Mass. 
Strong V. Carver Cotton Gin Co., 197 
Mass. 53, 83 N. E. 328; Porter v. Stan- 
dard Measuring Maeh. Co., 142 Mass. 
191, 7 N. E. 925. Mich.— Eodgers v. 



Torrant, 43 Mich. 113, 4 N. W. 507. 
Mo. — Meissner v. Standard Ey. Equip- 
ment Co., 211 Mo. 112, 109 S. W. 730. 
N. Y.— Buffalo Rubber Mfg'. Co. v. 
Batavia Eubber Co., 90 Misc. 418, 153 
N. Y. Supp. 779. Pa.— Consolidated 
Oil Well Packer Co. v. Jarecki Mfg. 
Co., 157 Pa. 342, 27 Atl. 543, 545; 
Hubbard v. Allen, 23 Pa. 198. 

[b] One joint owner of a patent 
(1) cannot maintain an action for 
royalties under a license issued solely 
by another joint owner (Paulus v. M. 
M. Buck Mfg. Co., 129 Fed. 594, 64 
C. C. A. 162; Lalance & Grosjean Mfg. 
Co. V. National Enameling & S. Co., 
108 Fed. 77; Levy v. Dattlebaum, 63 
Fed. 992; Pusey & Jones Co. v. Miller, 
61 Fed. 401), nor (2) will an account- 
ing for a share of such royalties lie 
against the licensor (U. S. — Black- 
ledge V. Weir & Craig Mfg. Co., 108 
Fed. 71, 47 C. C. A. 212. Mass. — Vose 
V. Singer, 4 Allen 226, 81 Am. Dec. 
696. N. Y. — Dewitt v. Elmira Nobles 
Mfg. Co., 5 Hun 301, affirmed, 66 N. 
Y. 459, 23 Am. Eep. 73. 

78. Butler v. Watkins, 13 Wall. (TJ. 
S.) 456, 20 L. ed. 629. 

79. U. S.— Henry v. A. B. Dick Co., 
224 TJ. S. 1, 32 Sup. Ct. 364, 56 L. 
ed. 645, Ann. Cas. 1913D, 880; Magic 
Euffle Co. V. Elm City Co., 13 Blatchf. 
151, 16 Fed. Cas. No. 8,949; England 
V. Thompson, 3 Cliff. 271, 8 Fed. Cas. 
No. 4,487; Cohn v. National Eubber 
Co., 6 Fed. Cas. No. 2,968; Berdan 
Fire Arms Mfg. Co. v. United States, 
26 Ct. CI. 48; McKeever v. United 
States, 14 Ct. CI. 396. Minn.— Deane 
V. Hodge, 35 Minn. 146, 27 N. W. 917, 
59 Am. Eep. 321. N. Y.— Grifan v. 
White, 142 N. Y. 539, 37 N. E. 468; 
Skinner v. Wood Mowing Mach. Co., 
14 N. Y. St. 317. 

80. Henry v. A. B. Dick Co., 224 
V. 8. 1, 32 Sup.' Ct. 364, 56 L. ed. 
645. Ann. Cas. 191 3D, 880. 

Suits for infringement, see infra, 
in, D, 1. 

81. See supra, II, A, 1. 

Vol. XKI 



182 



PATENTS 



of a eomtraet to assign or sell a patent or invention.'^ 

3. InjniiicliaB. — ^ In a proper ease a licensor may have the violation 
of the license enjoined.*' 

4. Rescission and Cancellation. — Fraud of either party in respect 
to a contract of sale, license or assignment of a patent will justify a 
rescission or cancellation of the contract at the instance of the other 
party." 

B. JuEisDiCTioN OP Proceedings Based on. — 1. In General.** 
The rule is well established that in the absence of diversity of eitizen- 
ship,*° eases arising under contract relating to a patent must be brought 
in a state court,*^ even though a question of infringement is incidental- 
ly involved.** But if the matter directly in issue is one of infringe- 



82. U. S.— Dalzell «. Dueber 'Watch- 
Case Mfg. Co., 149 TJ. S. 315, 13 Sup. 
Ct. 886, 37 L. ed. 749; Kennedy v. 
Hazleton, 128 U. S. 667, 9 Sup. Ct. 
202, 32 L. ed. 576; Ambler v. WUipple, 
20 Wall. 546i 22 L. ed. 403; Thompson 
V. Automatic Fire Protection Co., 197 
Fed. 750; Ball & Socket Fastener Co. 
V. Patent Button Co., 136 Fed. 272. 
Conn. — Birkery Mfg. Co. v. Jones, 71 
Conn. 113, 4ft Atl. 917. HI.— Batea 
Maeh. Co. v. Bates, 192 111. 138, 61 
N. B. 518; Whaeler v. Fishell, 32 111. 
App. 343. N. J. — Macon Knitting' Co. 
V. Leicester Mills Co., 65 N. J. Eq. 
138, 55 Atl. 401. N. Y.— Thourot v. 
Holub, 80 N. Y. Supp. 1083. 

[a] But lETot If Patent Is Void. 
Kennedy v. Hazleton, 128 IT. S. 667, 
9 Sup. Ct. 202, 32 L, ed. 576; Ham- 
mond V. Mason & Hamlin Organ Co., 
92 U. S. 724,, 23 L. ed. 767. ] 

83. Pusey & Jones Co. v. Miller, 61 \ 
Fed. 401; Woodworth v. Weed, 1 
Blatchf. 165, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 18,022; ■ 
Day V. Hartshorn, 7 Fed. Cas. No. I 
3,683. And see Wilson v. Sherman, 1 , 
Blatchf. 536, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 17,833. ' 

84. U. S.— Duff V. Gilliland, 139 
Fed. 16, 71 C. C. A. 428, r^ev-ersing 135. 
Fed. 581. D. C. — Backus Portable 
Steam Heater Co. v. Simonds, 2 App. 
Cas. 290. 111.— Bell v. Felt, 205 111. 
213, 68 N. K 794, moiifyma 102 111. 
App. 218. N. J. — Lederer v. Yule, 67 
N. J. Bq. 65, 57 Atl. 309. | 

[a] By acquiescence in the acts of 
the assignee, the assignor waives his 
right. Duff V. Gilliland, 139 Fed. 16, 
71 C. C. A. 428, reversing 135 Fed. 
581. 

85. Juilsdiction In Infringement 
cases, see infra, III, B. 

86. Prest-O-Lite Co. v. Avery Port- 
able Lighting Co., 364 Fed. 60; Me- I 
Kay V. Mace, 23 Fed. 76. | 

Va}^, XXZ 



87. U. S.— Henry v. A. B. Dick Co., 
224 U. S. 1, 32 Sup. Ct. 364, 56 L. ed. 
645; Ann. Cas. 1913D, 880; New Mar- 
shall Engine Co. v. Marshall Engine 
Co., 223 U. S. 473, 32 Sup. Ct. 238, 56 
L. ed. 5lS; White v. Eankin, 144 IT. S. 
628, 12 Sup. Ct. 768, 36 L. ed. 569; 
Kurtz V. Straus, 106 Fed. 414, 45 C. 
C. A. 366; Williams v. Star Sand Co., 
35 Fed. 369; McCarty & Hall Trad- 
ing Co. V. Glaenzer, 30 Fed. 387; Perry 
V. Littlefield, 17 Blatchf. 272, 19 Fed. 
Cas. No. 11,008; Nesmith v. Calvert, 

1 Woodb. & M. 34, 18 Fed. Cas. No. 
10,123; Brooks v. StoUey, 3 McLean 
523, 4 Fed. Cas. No. 1,962; Burr v. 
Gregory, 2 Paine 426, 4 Fed. Cas. No. 
2,191. N. Y.— Wise v. Tube Bending 
Mach. Co., 194 N. Y. 272, 87 N. E. 
430, affir-nving 119 App. Div. 920, 105 
N. Y. Supp. 1150. Ph.— In re Dick's 
Appeal, 106 Pa. 589. Wis.— Manning 
V. Galland-Henniug Pneumatic Malt- 
ing Drum Mfg. Co., 141 Wis. 199, 124 
N. W. 291. 

[a] A suit involving the constru'C- 
tion of a patent contract, the validity 
of the patent not being in issue, in 
the absence of diversity of citizenship, 
is not within the juriBdiotion of the 
federal courts. McMuUen v. Bowers 
102 Fed. 494, 42 C. C. A. 470; Ran- 
dolph, V. Eobinson, 20 Fed. Cas. No. 
11,561; Consolidated Fruit Jar Co. v. 
Whitney, 6 Fed. Cas. No. 3,133. 

fb] Wrongful Use of Patented 
Article.— When a patented article has 
been sold, redress for an injury re- 
sulting from the use thereof must be 
obtained in the state courts under 
state laws. Chaffee v. Boston Belting 
Co.,, 22 How. (U. S.) 217, 16 L. ed. 
240; Aiken v. Manchester Print Works, 

2 Cliff. 435, 1 Fed. Cas. No. 113. 

88. U. S.— Pratt v. Paris Gas Light 
& Coke Co., 168 y. S. 255, 18 Sup. 



PATENTS 



183 



ment, the state courts have no jurisdiction simply because a question 
concerning a contract respecting the patent arises collaterally in the 
ease.'* 

2. Particular Cases. — The state courts have jurisdiction to enforce 
an agreement to assign a patent,'" or to restrain such an assignment,"^ 
or to determine the question of ownership under an assignment,"^ or 
to set aside as fraudulent an assignment,"^ or a contract to assign."* 
A suit relating to a license is not one arising under the patent laws 
and should ordinarily be brought in a state court ;"^ such, for exam- 
ple, as to enforce the payment of royalties,"" to recover for breach of 



Ct. 62, 42 L. ed. 458; American Grapho- 
phone Co. v. Victor Talking Mach. Co., 
188 Fed. 428, 431, 110 C. C. A. 308; 
Harrington ». Atlantic & Pacifle Tele- 
graph Co., 185 ^EVd. 493, 107 0. C. A, 
595 {reversing 143 Fed. 329); Reliable 
Incubator & Brooder Co. v. Stahl, 105 
Fed. 663, 44 C. C. A. 657; Cleveland 
Engineering Co. v. Gallon Dynamic 
Motor Truck Co., 243 Fed. 405; Flint 
V. Hutchinson Smoke-Burner Co., 38 
Fed. 546. HI. — Myers v. Turner, 17 
ni. 179. Me. — Carleton v. Bird, 94 Me. 
182, 47 Atl. 154. Mass. — Aronson v. 
Orlov, 116 N. E. 951 ; Binn«y v. An- 
nan, 107 Mass. 94, 9 Am. Eep. 10; 
David V. Park, 103 Mass. 501. N. H. 
Dunbar v. Harden, 13 N. H. 311. N". J. 
Green v. Wilson, 21 N. J. Eq. 211. 
Wis. — ^Eice v. Garnhart, 34 Wis. 453, 
462, 17 Am. Eep. 448. 

89. Ingalls v. Tice, 14 Fed. 352; 
Teas V. Albright, 13 Fed. 406. And 
see infra, III, B. 

90. New Marshall Engine Co. v. 
Marshall Engine Co., 223 IT. S. 473, 
32 Sup. Ct. 238, 56 L. ed. 513; Gott- 
lieb V. Thatcher, 151 U. S. 271, 14 Sup. 
Ct. 319, 38 L. ed. 157; St. Louis Street 
Flushing Mach. Co. v. Sanitary Street 
Flushing Mach. Co., 161 Fed. 725, 88 
C. C. A. 585; Wren v. Aunin, 34 Fed. 
435; McCarty & Hall Trading Co. •». 
Glaenzer, 30 Fed. 387. 

91. Brooklyn Watch-Case Co. v. 
Leach, 35 Fed. 2. 

92. Atherton Mach., Co. v. Atwood- 
Morriaon Co., 99 Fed. 113; Mont- 
gomerj- Palace Stock Car Co. v. Street 
Stable Car Lin«, 43 Fed. 329. 

[a] But this should not be con- 
fused with property rights in a, patent 
obtained by an assignment as distin- 
guished' from contract rights. See 
New York Phonograph Co. v. Davega, 
127 App. Div. 222, 111 N. Y. Supp. 
363, and U. S. Eev. St., §4898; 8 IT. S; 
Comp. St., 1916, §9444. 



93. Harrington v. Atlantic & Pacific 
Telegraph Co., 185 Fed. 493, 107 C. 
C. A. 595 (reversing 143 Fed. 329); 
Kurtz V. Straus, 106 Fed. 414, 45 C. 
C. A. 366. 

94. Cely v. Griffin, 113 Fed. 981. 

95. U. S.— Wade v. Lawder, 165 U. 
S. 624, 17 Sup. Ct. 425, 41 L. ed. 
851; Marsh v. Nichols, Shepard & Co., 
140 U. S. 344, 11 Sup. Ct. 798, 35 L. 
ed. 413; Felix v. Scharnweber, 125 U. 
S. 54, 8 Sup. Ct. 759, 31 L. ed. 687; 
Goodyear v. Day, 1 Blatchf. 565, 10 
Fed. Cas. No. 5,568; Blanchard v. 
Sprague, 1 Cliff. 288, 3 Fed. Caa. No. 
1,516. Conn. — Peck v. Bacon, 18 Conn. 
377; Bull v. Pratt, 1 Conn. 342. lU. 
Rhodes v. Ashurst, 176 111. 351, 52 
N. E. 118; Havana Press Drill Co. v. 
Ashurst, 148 111. 115, 35 N. E. 873; 
Illinois Watch-Case Co. v. Ecaubert, 
75 111. App. 418. la. — Hunt v. Hoover, 
24 Iowa 231. Mass. — ^Binney v. Annan, 
107 Mass. 94, 9 Am. Eep. 10. N. Y. 
Continental Store Service Co. v. Clark, 
100 N. Y. 365, 3 N. E. 335; Snow v. 
Judson, 38 Barb. 210. Ohio. — Darst v. 
Brockway, 11 Ohio 462; Standard Com- 
bustion Co. V. Farr, 9 Ohio Dec. (Ee- 
print) 509y 14 Wkly. L. Bui. 201. Pa. 
Hubbard v. Allen, 123 Pa. 198, 16 Atl. 
772. 

[a] In case of infringement by a 
licensee, if the licensor waives the 
tort involved in the infringement and 
sues on the contractj the federal courts, 
in the absence of diversity of citizen- 
ship, have no jurisdiction. Henry v. 
A. B. Dick Co., 224 U. 8. 1, 32 Sup. 
Ct. 364, 56 L. ed. 645, Ann. Cas. 1913D, 
880. 

96. Briggs V. United Shoe Mach. 
Co., 239 TJ. S. 48, 36 Sup. Ct. 6, 60 
L. ed. 138; Albright v. Teas, 106 U. S. 
613, 1 Sup. Ct. 550, 27 L. ed. 295; 
Washburn & Moen Mfg. Co. v. Free- 
man Wire Co., 41 Fed. 410 (appeal dis- 
missed, 159 U. 8. 269, 15 Sup. Ct. 1043, 

Vol. XXI 



184 



PATENTS 



a license contract,*' to enforce the covenants of a license,*' to restrain 
the violation of a license contract under a patent,** or to set it aside 
on the ground that the patent is void.^ 

III. INFRINGEMENT. — A. Kemedies. — 1. At Law. — A pat- 
entee or owner of a patent has a remedy at law for damages for in- 
fringement of his patent.^ If formal, the action may be on the case,^ 
or, where there is a wrongful sale* or wrongful use,^ the patentee may 
waive the tort and sue in assumpsit.® 

2. In Equity. — ^Equity will, where the circumstances warrant it, 
enjoin the infringement of a patent,' but it will not undertake to de- 
clare an accounting in an infringement case,* unless other grounds for 
equitable relief exist, such as circumstances which caU for an ipjunc- 
tion.* 



40 L. ed. 141); Kelly v. Porter, 17 
Fed. 519, 8 Sawy. 482. See supra, 
III, C, 4. 

97. Eeliable Incubator & Broodei 
Co. V. Stahl, 105 Fed. 663, 44 C. C. A. 
657. 

98. Henry v. A. B. Dick Co., 224 
U. S. 1, 32 Sup. Ct. 364, 56 L. ed. 
645, Ann. Cas. 1913D, 880; Indiana 
Mfg. Co. V. Nichols & Shepard Co., 190 
Fed. 579; Merserole v. Union Paper 
Collar Co., 6 Blatchf. 356, 17 Fed. Cas. 
No. 9,488; Goodyear v. Union India 
Eubber Co., 4 Blatchf. 63, 10 Fed. Gas. 
No. 5,586. 

99. St. Louis Street Flushing Mach. 
Co. V. Sanitary Street Flushing Mach. 
Co., 161 Fed. 725, 88 C. C. A. 585. 

1. Merserole v. Union Paper Collar 
Co., 6 Blatchf. 356, 17 Fed. Cas. No. 
9,488. 

2. 16 U. S. St. at L. 207; U. S. 
Eev. St., §4919; 8 U. S. Comp. St., 
1916, §9464; Globe Knitting Works v. 
Segal, 239 Fed. 322; Panoulias v. Na- 
tional Equipment Co., 198 Fed. 493; 
Bragg V. Stockton, 27 Fed. 509; Knight 
V. Baltimore & O. E. Co., Taney 106, 
14 Fed. Cas. No. 7,882. 

3. 16 U. S. St. at L. 207; U. S. 
Eev. St., §4919; 8 U. S. Comp. St., 
1916, §9464; Agawam Woolen Co. v. 
Jordan, 7 Wall. (U. 8.) 583, 19 L. ed. 
177; Moore v. Marsh, 7 Wall. (U. S.) 
515, 19 L. ed. 37; Stein v. Goddard, 22 
Fed. Cas. No. 13,353. 

[a] Actual damage or injury must 
result from the infringement, other- 
wise case will not lie. Brown v. Lan- 
yon, 148 Fed. 838, 77 C. C. A. 528 
(certiorari denied, 204 U. S. 672, 27 
Sup. Ct. 787, 51 L. ed. 673); Byam v. 
Bullard, 1 Curt. 100, 4 Fed. Cas. No. 
2,262. 

Vol. XXI 



4. Steam Stone-Cutter Co. v. Shel- 
dons, 15 Fed. 608, 21 Blatchf. 260. 

5. Henry v. A. B. Dick Co., 224 
U. S. 1, 32 Sup. Ct. 364, 56 L. ed. 645, 
Ann. Cas. 1913D, 880; Wilson v. Sand- 
ford, 10 How. (U. S.) 99, 13 L. ed. 
344; Heatou-Peninsular Button-Fasten- 
er Co. V. Eureka Specialty Co., 77 Fed. 
288, 25 C. C. A. 267, 35 L. E. A. 728; 
Pope Mfg. Co. V. Owsley, 27 Fed. 100. 

6. Steam Stone-Cutter Co. v. Shel- 
dons, 15 Fed. 608, 21 Blatchf. 260. 

7. 29 U. S. St. at L. 694; U. S. 
Eev. St., §4921; 8 U. S. Comp. St., 
1916, §9467; Atlas Floor Co. v. Bob- 
bins Mfg. Co., 239 Fed. 135, 152 C. C. 
A. 177; Globe Knitting Works v. 
Segal, 239 Fed. 322; Panoulias v. Na- 
tional Equipment Co., 198 Fed. 493; 
Bragg V. Stockton, 27 Fed. 509. 

8. Boot V. Lake Shore & M. S. E. 
Co., 105 U. S. 189, 26 L. ed. 975; 
Brown v. Xanyon, 148 Fed. 838, 77 C. 
C. A. 528; Eussell v. Kern, 69 Fed. 
94, 16 C. C. A. 154 (^affirming 64 Fed. 
581); Germain v. Wilgus, 67 Fed. 597, 
14 C. C. A. 561; Globe Knitting Works 
V. Segal, 239 Fed. 322. 

9. Boot V. Lake Shore & M. S. E. 
Co., 105 U. S. 189, 26 L. ei. 975; 
Hewitt V. Pennsylvania Steel Co., 24 
Fed. 367; McMillin v. St. Louis & M. 
Val. Transp. Co., 18 Fed. 260, 5 Me- 
Crary 561; Perry v. Corning, 6 Blatchf. 
134, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 11,003; Eclipse 
Bicycle Co. v. Farrow, 16 App. Cas. 
(D. C.) 468. 

[a] Grounds for Equity Jurisdic- 
tion. — "A bill in equity for a naked 
account of profits and damages against 
an infringer of a patent cannot be sus- 
tained; that such relief ordinarily is 
incidental to. some other equity, the 
right to enforce which secures to the 



PATENTS 



185 



A court of equity ordinarily has no jurisdiction of a suit brought 
upon a patent which has expired,^" unless the bill contains a statement 
of facts showing the remedy at law to be inadequate.^^ However, this 
rule does not effect a case based upon an expired patent and a live 
patent.'^ Jurisdiction of the court is not affected by the expiration of 
the patent pendente lite," but the suit will be dismissed if the circum- 
stances indicate that the jurisdiction of equity is invoked because the 
patent is about to expire and no special ground for invoking such juris- 
diction is shown.^* 

B. Jurisdiction as Between State and Federal Couets. — Pur- 
suant to the general rule under the constitution and statutes of the 
United States vesting jurisdiction of all cases in law or equity aris- 
ing under the patent laws, in the federal courts,^" the United States 



patentee his standing in court ;_ that 
the most general ground for equitable 
interposition is, to insure to the pat- 
entee th© enjoyment of his specific 
right by injunction against a con- 
tinuance of the infringement; but that 
grounds of equitable relief may arise, 
other than by way of injunction, aa 
■where the title of the complainant is 
equitable merely, or equitable inter- 
position is necessary on account of the 
impediments which prevent a resort to 
remedies purely legal; and such an 
equity may arise out of, and inhere 
in, the nature of the account itself, 
springing from special and peculiar 
circumstances which disable the pat- 
entee from a recovery at law alto- 
gether, or render his remedy in a 
legal tribunal difBcult, inadequate, and 
incomplete; and as such cases cannot 
ibe defined more exactly, each must 
rest upon its own particular circum- 
stances, as furnishing a clear and sat- 
isfactory ground of exception from the 
general rule." Eoot v. Lake Shore & 
M. S. Ey. Co., 105 V. S. 189, 215, 26 
L. ed. 975. 

[b] Equity will retain jurisdiction 
once obtained, and declare an account- 
ing though the injunction is no longer 
desirable or obtainable. International 
Curtis Marine Turbine Co. v. Wm. 
Cramp & Sons Ship & Engine Bldg. 
Co., 202 Fed. 932, 121 C. C. A. 290; 
Carnegie Steel Co. v. Colorado Fuel, 
etc. Co., 165 Fed. 195, 91 C. C. A. 
229; Wagner v. Mt. Carmel Iron Wks., 
244 Fed. 818. 

10. Eoot V. Lake Shore & M. S. E. 
Co., 105 V. S. 189, 26 L. ed. 975; 
Tompkins v. St. Eegis Paper Co., 236 
Fed. 221, 149 C. C. A. 411; Adams v. 
Bridgewater Iron Co., 26 Fed. 324; 



Consolidated Safety-Valve Co, v. Ash- 
ton Valve Co., 26 Fed. 319. 

Injunction and accounting in equity, 
see supra, V, A, 2. 

11. Tompkins v. St. Eegis Paper Co., 
236 Fed. 221, 149 C. C. A. 411. 

12. Huntington Dry-Pulverizer Co. 
V. Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co., 130 
Fed. 558. 

13. Beedle v. Bennett, 122 U. S. 71, 
7 Sup. Ct. 1090, 30 L. ed. 1074; Clark 
17. Wooster, 119 TJ. S. 322, 7 Sup. Ct. 
217, 30 L. ed. 392; Carnegie Steel Co. 
V. Colorado Fuel, etc. Co.', 165 Fed. 
195, 91 C. C. A. 229; United States 
Mitis Co. •». Detroit Steel & Spring Co., 
122 Fed. 863, 59 C. C. A. 589; Chin- 
nock V. Paterson, P. & S. Tel. Co., 
112 Fed. 531, 50 C. C. A. 199 (reversing 
110 Fed. 199); Huntington Dry-Pul- 
verizer Co. V. Virginia-Carolina Chem- 
ical Co., 130 Fed. 558; Bradner Ad- 
justable Hanger Co. v. Waterbury But- 
ton Co., 106 Fed. 735; Kittle v. Schnei- 
der, 30 Fed. 690; Dick v. Struthers, 25 
Fed. 103; Adams v. Howard, 19 Fed. 
317; Jones V. Barker, 11 Fed. 597; Jor- 
dan V. Dobson, 2 Abb. 398, 7 Phila. 
533, 13 Fed. Gas. No. 7,519; Busch v. 
Jones, 16 App. Cas. (D. C.) 23. 

[a] Equitable Belief Not Depend- 
ent Upon Existence of Patent. — Toledo 
M. & E. Co. V. Johnston Harvester 
Co., 24 Fed. 739, 23 Blatchf. 332. 

14. Miller v. Schwarner, 130 Fed. 
561; Heap v. Borchers, 108 Fed. 237; 
McDonald v. Miller, 84 Fed. 344; 
American Cable E. Co. v. Chicago City 
E. Co., 41 Fed. 522; Eacine Seeder 
Co. V. Joliet Wire Check Eower Co., 
27 Fed. 367; Davis v. Smith, 19 Fed. 
823. 

15. See the title "United States 
Courts;" 17 Standard Pboc. 825; and 

Vol. XXI 



186 



PATENTS 



district court has exclusive origiaal jurisdiction over infringement 
suits,^^ without regard to diversity of citizenship or amount of money 
involved.^' If the suit arises under the patent laws, the jurisdiction of 
the federal court is not affected by the presence of other and collateral 
issues,^^ such as those invoking contracts of sale, assignment or license 
of the patent, ^^ or an issue of unfair competition.^" But where the facts 
making up the unfair competition arise from acts independent of the 
infringement, the federal court is without jurisdiction in the absence 



Act of March 3, 1911, ch. 231, §24, 
par. 7; 36 U. S. St. at L. 1092; 1 
tJ. S. Comp. St., 1916, §991 (7). 

Injunction and accounting, see supra, 
III, A, 2. 

Actions arising out of sale assign- 
ment or license, see supra, II, B. 

16. Boston Store of Chicago v. Amer- 
ican Graphophone Co., 38 Sup. Ct. 257; 
Healy v. Sea Gull Specialty Co., 237 
U. S. 479, 35 Sup. Ct. 658, 59 L. ed. 
1056; Henry v. A. B. Dick Co., 224 
U. S. 1, 32 Sup. Ct. 364, 56 L. ed. 
645, Ann. Cas. 1913D, 880; Agawam 
Woolen Co. v. Jordan, 7 Wall. (U. S.) 
583, 19 L. ed. 177; Moore v. Marsh, 7 
Wall. {V. S.) 515, 19 L. ed. 37; Amer- 
ican Graphophone Co. v. Piekard, 201 
Fed. 546; Bauhe v. Justi, 196 Fed. 54; 
Cheatham Electric Switching D. Co. 
V. Transit Dev. Co., 191 Fed. 727; In- 
diana Mfg. Co. V. Nichols & Sh^ard 
Co., 190 Fed. 579; National Casket Co. 
V. New York & Brooklyn Casket Co., 
185 Fed. 533; Vermont Farm Mach. 
Co. V. Gibson, 50 Fed. 423 {aprmed', 
56 Fed. 143, 5 C. C. A. 451) ; Campbell 
V. James, 2 Fed. 338, 18 Blatehf. 92; 
Stanley Eule & Level Co. v. Baaley, 14 
Blatchf. 510, 82 Fed. Cas. No. 13,287; ' 
Excelsior Steel Furnace Co. v. F. Meyet 
& Bro. Co., 182 111. App. 537. i 

■fa] rf it be found that no right 
of action for infringement will Ue, the 
federal court can no longer entertain 
Jurisdiction of the case, unless some 
other ground, such as diversity of cit- 
izenship, gives the court jurisdietiom 
of the subject matter of the action', 
and it is the court's duty, when its 
jurisdiction is exhausted, to dismiss 
the action. Eoenig v. Morris, 243 Fed. ' 
619. I 

17. Doolan v. Carr, 125 U. S. 618, ] 
8 Sup. Ct. 1228, 31 L. ed. 844; Evans ' 
V. Eaton, 3 Wheat. (U. S.) 454, 4 L. 
ed. 433; United Shoe MacK Co. v. 
Duplessis Independent Shoe Mach. Co., 
133 Fed. 930. 

18. Kealy v. Sea Gull Specialty Co., 
237 TJ. S. 479, 35 Sup. Ct. 658, 59 I^ 

Vol. XXI 



ed. 1056; The Pair v. Kohler Die & 
Specialty Co., 228 U. S. 22, 33 Sup. Ct. 
410, 57 L. ed. 716; Fallbrook Irrigation 
District v. Bradley, 164 U. S. 112, 17 
Sup. Ct. 56, 41 L. ed. 369; Swindell 
V. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co., 230 
Fed. 438, 144 C. G. A. 580; Cleveland 
EngineelriHg Co. v. Gallon Dynamic 
Motor Truck Co., 243 Fed. 405; Avery 
V. Wilson, 20 Fed. 856. 

19. Geneva Furniture Mfg. Co. v. S. 
Karpen, 238 U. S. 254, 35 Sup. Ct. 
788, 59 L. ed. 1295; Healy v. Sea Gull 
Specialty Co., 237 U. S. 479, 35 Sup. 
Ct. 658, 59 L. ed. 1056; Henry v. A. B. 
Dick Co., 224 U. S. 1, 32 Sup. Ct. 
364, 56 L. ed. 645, Ann. Cas. 1913D, 
880'; Victor Talking Mach. Co. v. The 
Fair, 123 Fed. 424, 61 C. C. A. 58; 
Atherton Mach. Co. v. Atwood-Mor- 
rison Co., 102 Fed. 949, 43 C. C. A. 
72; Bternardin v. Northall, 77 Fed. 
849. 

[a] That royalties are sought in an 
injunction suit, instead of damages> 
does not defeat the jurisdiction. Swin- 
dell V. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co., 
230 Fed. 438, 144 C. C. A. 580. 

[_b]_ A plea of license does not oust 
jurisdiction in an infringement suit. 
White 13. Bankin, 144 IT. S. 628, 12 Sup. 
Ct. 768, 36 li. ed. 569; Elgin Wind 
Power & Pump. Co. v. Nichols, 65 Fed. 
215, 12 C. 0. A. 578;, Everett v. Haul- 
enbeek, 68 Fed. 911. 

[c] A plea of abandonment, for- 
feiture and revocation of the license 
in a^n infringement suit by the licensee 
against the licensor, does. not deprive 
the court of jurisdiction. Excelsior 
Wooden-Pipe Co. v. Pacific Bridge Co., 
185 U. S. 282, 22 Sup. Ct. 681, 46 L 
ed. 910. ' ^ . ^• 

20. K-W Ignition Co. v. Temco Elec- 
tric Motor Co., 243 Fed. 588, 156 C. C. 
A. 286; Lndwigs v. Payson Mfg. Co., 
206 Fed. 60, 124 C. G. A. 194; Shiauger 
V. Phillip Bernard Co., 240 Fed. 131; 
Onondaga Indian Wigwam Go. v. Ka- 
Noo-No Indian Mfg. Co., 182 Fed. 832; 



PATENTS 



187 



of diversity of citizenship."^ And it has been held that even when 
the infringement and the unfair competition arise out of the same acts 
of the defendant, if the latter presents an independent cause of action 
it cannot be considered.''" 

C. Venue."^ — Infringement cases must be brought in the district 
of which the defendant is an inhabitant,"* or in which the defendant, 
whether a person, partnership, or corporation, has committed the acts 
of infringement and has. a regular andestabli'shed place of business."^ 

D. Parties."^ — 1. Plaintiff. — a. In General. — Parties inter- 
ested,"' ei'ther as patentee"* or aissignee"'* may, by provision of the 
statute,*" bring an action in his own name*^ for infringement of a 
patent. , 

b. By Patentee. — A patentee, who continues the owner of the 
patent and the real party in interest, is the party to bring the action 
for inf ri-ngement,*" or, i£ he be deceased, it may be brought by his per- 



T. B. Woods Son& Co. v. Valley Iron 
Works, 166 Fed. 770. 

21. W. F. Bums Co. v. Automatic 
Eecording Safe Co.,, 241 Fed. 472, 154 
C. C. A. 304; United States Expansion 
Bolt Co. V. H. G. Kroneke Hdw. Co., 
234 Fed. 868, 148 C. C. A. 466; Mal- 
linson v. Eyan, 242 Fed. 951; Unit 
Const. Co. V. Huskey Mfg. Co., 241 Fed. 
129; Shrauger v. Fhillip Bernard Co., 
240 Fed. 131; Johnston «. Brass Goods 
Mfg. Co., 201 Fed. 368; Ross v. H. S. 
Geer Co., 188 Fed. 731. 

22. Mecky v. Grabowski, 177 Fed. 
591; Cushman v. Atlantic Fountain Pen 
Co., 164 Fed. 94; C. L. King & Co. 
V. Inlander, 133 Fed. 416. 

23. See the title "Venue." 

24. Fed. Judicial Code, §48; 36 U. S. 
St. at L. 1100; 2 U. S. Comp. St., 
1916, ^1030; Arbetter Felling Maeh. 
Co. V. Lewis Blind Stitch Mach. Co., 
230 Fed. 992, 145 C. C. A. 186. 

25. Fed. Judicial Code, §48; 36 U. S. 
St. at L. 1100; 2 U. S. Comp. St., 1916, 
§1030; Westinghouse Air-Brake Co. v. 
Great Northern E. Co., 88 Fed. 258, 
31 C. C. A. 525; Dicks Press Guard 
Mfg. Co. V. Bowen, 229 Fed. 193. 

[a] In sultSt for laf ringement against 
a. nonresident corpeHrasftilon, the court is 
without jurisdiction if the defendant 
has no established place of business 
in the district; it is imsuffieient that 
the acts of infringement were com- 
mitted there. United States Envelope 
Co, a Transeo Paper Giy., 229 Fed. 576 
(ob.iection not waived- by aippearanoe); 
Pfeder I), A. R Fiedler, 116 Fed. 378. 

fb] In Case of Counterdaim. — It iff 
not a valid ob.fection that the' defend- 
ant's counterclaim could not have been 



maintained as an original suit in the 
district where the suit for infringe- 
ment is brought. United States Expan- 
sion Bolt Co. V. H. G. Kroneke Hdw. 
Co., 234 Fed. 868, 148 C. C. A. 466. 

26. See the title "Parties." 

27. Waterman v. Mackenzie, 29 Fed. 
316. 

[a] Interest when infringement was 
committed (1) is sufficient in an action 
at law (Spring v. Domestic Sewiug- 
Mach. Co., 13 Fed. 446), but (2) a 
suit in equity for injunction must be 
instituted by parties haying a present 
interest in the patent. Waterman v. 
Mackenzie, 29 Fed. 316. 

[b] The Eeal Owner or Party in 
Interest. — Goldsmith v. American Paper 
Collar Co., 2 Fed. 239, 18 Blatchf. 82. 

[c] One who owns the legal title 
to a patent and the exclusive right to 
use it. Potter v. Wilson, 19 Fed. Cas. 
No. 11,342. 

28. See infra, III, D, 1, b. 

29. See infra, HI, D, 1, o. 

30. 16 U. S. St. at L. 207; U. S. 
Eev. St., §4919; 8 U. S. Comp. St., 
1916, §9464. 

[a] Statute cannot be extended by 
state statutes. Webb v. Goldsmith, 127 
Fed. 572. 

31. Goldsmith v. American Paper 
Collar Co., 2 Fed. 239, 18 Blatchf. 82; 
Lorillard v. Standard Oil Co., 2 Fed. 
902, 18 Blatchf. 199. 

32.' Philadelphia, W. & B. E. Co. 
V. Trimble,. 10 Wall. (U. S.) 367, 19 L. 
ed. 948; Ormsby v. Connors, 133 Fed. 
548; Freese v. S-wawtehiW, 35 Fed. 141; 
Park V. Little, 3 Wash. C. C. 196, 18 
Fed. Cas. No. 10,715. 

Vol. XXI 



188 



PATENTS 



sonal representative.'* Where, however, at the time of the infringe- 
ment the title to the patent has passed from the patentee by assign- 
ment,^* or otherwise,'" he cannot maintain the suit. 

c. By Assignee. — An assignee may sue in his own name for in- 
fringement,'® but he has no right to sue for a past infringement," 
unless the assignment expressly or by necessary inference confers that 
right upon him." The action, as a rule, will not lie in favor of the 
assignee of a part of a patent right," unless the infringement occurs 



33. De la Vergne Eefrig. Maeh. Co. 
V. Featherstone, 147 U. S. 209, 13 Sup. 
Ct. 283, 37 L. ed. 138; Illinois Cent. 
E. Co. V. Turrill, 110 U. S. 301, 4 Sup. 
Ct. 5, 28 L. ed. 154; Providence Rub- 
ber Co. V. Goodyear, 9 Wall. (U. S.) 
788, 19 L. ed 566. 

34. Moore v. Marsh, 7 Wall. (U. S.) 
515, 19 L. ed. 37; Eoss v. Ft. Wayne, 
58 Fed. 404; Herbert v. Adams, 4 
Mason 15, 12 Fed. Cas. No. 6,394. See 
infra, III, D, 1, c. 

[a] Where the assignment is not 
effectuated, it does not prevent the 
patentee from suing. Philadelphia, W. 
& B. E. Co. V. Trimble, 10 Wall. (U. 
8.) 367, 19 L. ed. 948. 

[b] Assignment as Security for 
Debt. — Where an assignment, though 
absolute in form, is by a collateral 
agreement made merely a security for 
payment of a debt, with a reservation 
of right to use and license under the 
patent, the assignor does not lose his 
right to sue for infringement. Ormsby 
V. Connors, 133 Fed. 548. 

35. Herbert v. Adams, 4 Mason 15, 
12 Fed. Cas. No. 6,394. 

36. Waterman v. Mackenzie, 138 U. 
S. 252, 11 Sup. Ct. 334, 34 L. ed. 
923; Wilson «. Eousseau, 4 How. (IT. 
S.) 646, 11 L. ed. 1141; Seibert Cylin- 
der Oil-Cup Co. V. Phillips Lubricator 
Co., 10 Fed. 677; Herbert v. Adams, 
4 Mason 15, 12 Fed. Cas. No. 6,394. 

[a] Assignee of the Heirs of a 
Patentee. — Winkler v. Studebaeker Bros. 
Mfg. Co., 105 Fed. 190. 

[b] Assignee of a Foreign Admin- 
istrator. — Smith V. Mercer, 3 Clark 444, 
.22 Fed. Cas. No. 13,078. 

[c] Iilmltations on Term "As- 
signee."— The word "assignee," as 
used by this section of the statute, 
means the assignee of a patent right, 
and not merely an assignee of a claim 
for infringement. Webb v. Goldsmith, 
127 Fed. 572. 

[d] An assignment must be recorded 
In the patent ofKce before the assignee 
may maintain an action for infringe- 

Vol. XXI 



ment of the patent. Wyeth v. Stone, 
1 Story 273, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 18,107. 
Compare Ormsby v. Connors, 133 Fed. 
548. 

[e] Patent Issued after assignment 
and in name of assignor. Gayler v. 
Wilder, 10 How. (U. S.) 477, 13 L. ed. 
504. 

[f] A Trustee. — Waterman v. Mac- 
kenzie, 138 U. S. 252, 11 Sup. Ct. 334, 
34 L. ed. 923; Knight v. Gavit, 14 Fed. 
Cas. No. 7,884; Dibble v. Augur, 7 
Blatchf. 86, 7 Fed. Cas. No. 3,879; 
Bryan v. Stevens, 4 Fed. Cas. No. 
2,066a. 

[g] A mortgagee may sue for in- 
fringement upon filing or recording his 
mortgage in the patent oface. Water- 
man V. Mackenzie, 138 U. S. 252, 11 
Sup. Ct. 334, 34 L. ed. 923. 

[h] The mere appointment of a re- 
ceiver is not enough to enable him to 
sue for infringement in his own name; 
there must be an actual assignment of 
the patent to him. Ball v. Coker, 168 
Fed. 304. 

37. Moore v. Marsh, 7 Wall. (U. S.) 
515, 19 L. ed. 37; Johnston v. 'South- 
ern Well Works Co., 208 Fed. 145, 125 
C. C. A. 361; Auto Spring Eepairer Co 
V. Grinberg, 196 Fed. 52: Superior Drili 
Co. V. Ney Mfg. Co., 98 Fed. 734; New 
York Grape Sugar Co. v. Buffalo Grape 
Sugar Co., 24 Fed. 604, 18 Fed. 638. 
21 Blatchf. 519. ' 

38. May v. Saginaw, 32 Fed. 629- 
May V. Logan, 30 Fed. 250; Adams 
V. Bellaire Stamping Co., 25 Fed. 270; 
Spring V. Domestic Sew. Mach. Co.. 13 
Fed. 446. ' 

[a] Mere Intention to include in an 
assignment of letters patent claims for 
past infringement, will not suffice to 
invest the assignee with any equitable 
title to such claims. Bmerson « Hub- 
bard, 34 Fed. 327. 

39. Tyler v. Tuel, 6 Cranch (U. S.) 
324, 3 L. ed. 237; Whittemore v Cut- 
ter, 1 Gall. 429, 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,600; 
Suydam v. Day, 2 Blatchf, 20, 23 Fed. 



PATENTS 



189 



within a district in which he owns the exclusive right to the patent.*" 
d. By Licensee. — A mere licensee of letters patent cannot recover 
for infringement, in his own name,*^ unless, of course, the patentee 
is the infringer.*^ But an exclusive licensee, whose interests are af- 
fected by the infringement, may sue, and join the patentee, in the 
event of a refusal of the latter to sue.*' 

2. Defendant.** — a. In General. — An action or suit for infringe- 
ment will lie against anyone who participates in the infringement;*" 



Cas. No. 13,654; Blanehard v. Eldridge, 
1 Wall. Jr. 337, 3 Fed. Cas. No. 1,510. 
,40. Wilson V. Rousseau, 4 How. (U. 
S.) 646, 11 L. ed. 1141; Washburn v. 
Gould, 3 Story 122, 29 Fed. Cas. No. 
17,214. 

41. TJ. S. — Pope Mfg. Co. v. Gormul- 
ly & Jeffery Mfg. Co., 144 U. S. 248, 
12 Sup. Ct. 641, 36 L. ed. 4^3; Water- 
man V. Mackenzie, 138 TJ. S. 252, 11 
Sup. Ct. 334, 34 L. ed. 923; Blrdsell 
V. Shaliol, 112 U. S. 485, 5 Sup. Ct. 
244, 28 L. ed. 768; Gayler v. Wilder, 
10 How. 477, 13 L. ed. 504; Southern 
Textile Mach. Co. v. Fay Stocking Co., 
243 Fed. 917; Consolidated Eubber Tire 
Co. V. B. F. Goodrich Co., 237 Fed, 
893; Bowers v. Atlantic, Gulf & Pacific 
Co., 162 Fed.. 895. Mass. — American 
Toy Mfg. Co. V. McLoughlin, 221 Mass. 
567, 109 N. E. 836. Wis.— Manning v. 
Galland-Henning Pneumatic Malting 
Drum Mfg. Co., 141 'Wis. 199, 124 N. W. 
291. 

[a] The Eule Stated. — "In equity, 
as at law, when the transfer amounts 
to a license only, the title remains in 
the owner of the patent; and suit must 
be brought in his name, and never in 
the name of the licensee alone, unless 
that is necessary to prevent an ab- 
solute failure of justice, as where the 
patentee is the infringer, and cannot 
sue himself. Any rights of the licensee 
must be enforced through or in the 
name of the owner of the patent, and 
perhaps, if necessary to protect the 
rights of all parties, joining the licen- 
see with him as a plaintiff." Water- 
man V. Mackenzie, 138 U. S.- 252, 11 
Sup. Ct. 334, 34 L. ed. 923. 

42. Waterman v. Mackenzie, 138 TJ. 
S. 252, 11 Sup. Ct. 334, 34 L. ed. 923; 
Southern Textile Mach. Co. v. Fay 
Stocking Co., 243 Fed. 917; Bowers v. 
Atlantic, Gulf & Pacific Co., 162 Fed. 
895; Rapp V. Kolling, 41 Fed. 792; New 
York Phonograph Co. v. Pavega, 127 
App. IMv. 222, 111 N. Y. Supp. 363. 

[a] Exclusive right within a cer- 
tain territory, invaded by the paten- 



tee. Wilson V. Rousseau, 4 How. (U. 
S.) 646, 11 L. ed. 1141; Whitson v. 
Columbia Phonograph Co., 18 App. 
Cas. (D. C.) 565. 

43. Excelsior Wooden-Pipe Co. v. 
Seattle, 117 Fed. 140, 55 C. C. A. 156; 
Excelsior Wooden-Pipe Co. v. Allen, 104 
Fed. 553, 44 C. C. A. 30; Brush Elec- 
tric Co. V. California Blee. Light Co., 
52 Fed. 945, 3 C. C. A. 368; Brush 
Electric Co. v. Electric Imp. Co., 49 
Fed. 73; Brush-Swan Elec. Light Co. 
V. Thomson-Houston Elec. Co., 48 Fed. 
224. See also Waterman v. Mackenzie, 
138 V. S. 252, 11 Sup. Ct. 334, 34 L. 
ed. 923. 

44. As to intervention by the owner 
: of property in an Infringement suit 

against a user, see 14 Standard Proc. 
306. 

I 45. Turner v. Quincy Market Cold 
I Storage & Warehouse Co., 225 Fed. 41, 
140 C. C. A. 367; Brothers v. Lidger- 
! wood Mfg. Co., 223 Fed. 359, 138 C. 
C. A. 460; Goshen Rubber Works v. 
Single Tube Automobile & Bicycle Tire 
Co., 166 Fed. 431, 92 C. C. A. 183; 
Graham v. Earl, 82 Fed. 737; Cramer 
V. Fry, 68 Fed. 201; National Car Brake 
Shoe Co. V. Terre Haute Car & Mfg. 
Co., 19 Fed. 514; Campbell v. James, 2 
Fed. 338, 18 Blatchf. 92. 

[a] A joint owner who acts in re- 
lation to the patent without authority 
from his co-owner. Herring v. Gas 
Consumers' Assn., 9 Fed. 556, 3 Mc- 
Crary 206; Pitts v. Hall, 3 Blatchf. 
201, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 11,193. 

[b] A contributory infringer, i. e., 
one who aids and encourages infringe- 
ment by another. Thomson-Houston 
Electric Co. v. Ohio Brass Co., 80 Fed. 
712, 26 C. C. A. 107; Simplex Electric 
Heating Co. v. Leonard, 148 Fed. 1023. 

[e] An agent who makes, uses or 
sells an infringing device may be 
made a defendant in an action or suit 
for the infringement. Featherstone v. 
Ormonde Cycle Co., 53 Fed. 110; Steiger 
V. Heidelberger, 4 Fed. 455, 18 Blatchf. 

Vol. XXI 



190 



PATENTS 



whether he be the patentee,*' a licensee,*^ or the manufacturer*' or 
user*' of the infringing devise. 

b. Corporations and Their Agents. — When the acts of infringe- 
ment are committed by their agent acting within the scope of his 
authority, an action or suit for infringement may be brought against 
a private^" or a municipaP^ corporation. An officer of a corporation 
who is actively engaged in promoting the infringement may be re- 
strained,^^ or proceeded against for damages."^ 

e. The United States and Its Officers. — An action for infringement 
cannot be maintained against the United States without its consent,^* 
nor against one who makes under contract all or any part of a patented 
device for the use of the federal government,^^ but the owner of a 
patented invention may recover in the court of claims compensation 



426; Morse v. Davis, 5 Blatchf. 40, 17 
Ped. Gas. No. 9,855. 

[d] Not Against a Mere Purchaser. 
Blanchard's Gun Stock Turning Factory 
V. Jacobs, 2 Blatchf. 69, 3 Fed. Cas. 
No. 1,520. 

[e] Not a mere workingman or ser- 
vant for using it. Graham v. Earl, 
92 Fed. 155, 34 C. C. A. 267; United 
Nickel Co. v. Worthington, 13 Fed. 
392. 

46. Excelsior Wooden-Pipe Co. v. 
Pacific Bridge Co., 185 U. S. 282, 22 
Sup. Ct. 681, 46 L. ed. 910 (infringe- 
ment of assigned patent by patentee) ; 
Littlefield f. Perry, 21 Wall. (U. S.) 
205, 22 L. ed. 577; Wilson v. Rousseau, 

4 How. (U. S.) 646, 11 L. ed. 1141. 

47. St. Louis' Street Flushing Mach. 
Co V. Sanitary Street Flushing Mach. 
Co., 178 Fed. 923, 103 C. C. A. 565; 
Indiana Mfg. Co. v. J. I. Case Thresh- 
ing Mach. Co., 154 Fed. 365, 83 C. C. 
A. 343; Indiana Mfg. Co. v. Nichols 
& Shepard Co., 190 Fed. 579; National 
Cash Register Co. v. Grobet, 148 Fed. 
385; Pope Mfg. Co. v. OwBley, 27 Fed. 
100. 

48. Cramer v. Fry, 68 Fed. 201; 
Bryce v. Dorr, 3 McLean 582, 4 Fed. 
Cas. No. 2,070. 

[a] Manufacturer of Infringing De- 
vice.— Birdsell V. Shaliol, 112 U. S. 485, 

5 Sup. Ct. 244, 28 L. ed. 768; Morgan 
Gardner Electric Co. v. Buettner & 
Shelburne Mach. Co., 203 Fed. 490, 121 
C. C. A. 612. 

49. Birdsell v. Shaliol, 112 TJ. S. 485, 

5 Sup. Ct. 244, 28 L. ed. 768; Wag- 
ner V. Meccano, 239 Fed. 901, 153 C. 
C. A. 29; Jefi«raou Electric Light, H. 

6 P. Co. V. Westinghouae Electric, etc. 
Co., 134 Fed. 392, 67 C. C. A. 189; 
Bresnahan v. Tripp Giant Leveller Co., 
72 Fed. 920, 19 C. C. A. 237; De Laski 

Vol. XXI 



& Thropp Circular Woven Wire Co. i). 
Empire Rubber & Tire Co., 239 Fed. 
139; Westinghouae Air Brake Co. ■». 
Burton Stock-Car Co., 70 Fed. 619. 

50. Elizabeth v. American Nichol- 
son Pavement Co., 97 TJ. S. 126, 24 
L. ed. 1000; York & M. L. R. Co. «. 
Winans, 17 How. (IT. S.) 31, 15 L. ed. 
27; Harrington v. Atlantic & Pac. Tel. 
Co., 143 Fed. 329; United Nickel Co. 
v. Worthington, 13 Fed. 392. 

51. May v. Saginaw, 32 Fed. 629; 
May V. Ralls, 31 Fed. 473; May v. 
Logan, 30 Fed. 250; May v. Mercer, 30 
Fed. 246; Ransom v. New York, 20 Fed. 
Cas. No. Ilj573. 

[a] Act of Contractor. — Where a 
contractor, in building a jail, used .a 
patented device without permission, 
and without the knowledge or author- 
ity of the county ofBciala, Ian action 
for infringement against the county 
was dismissed. May v. Juneau, 30 Fed. 

52. Cahoone Barnet Mfg. Co. v. Rub- 
ber & Celluloid Harness Co., 45 Fed. 
582; Iowa Barb Steel- Wire Co. v. 
Southern Barbed- Wire Co., 30 Fed. 123- 
Poppenhusen v. Falke, 4 Blatchf. 493' 
19 Fed. Cas. No. 11,279. 

53. National Cash Register Co v 
Leland, 94 Fed. 502, 37 C. C. A. 372: 
Graham v. Earl, 92 Fed. 155, 34 C C 
A. 267; Harrington v. Atlantic & Pac. 
Tel. Co^ 143 Fed. 329; National Car 
Brake Shoe Co. v. Terre Haute Car 
& Mfg. Co., 19 Fed. 514. 

CI. (U. S) 110; 21 Op. Atty. Gen. 96. 
See the title "United States." 

55. Crozier v. Fried. Krupp Aktien- 
gesellschaft,. 224 U. S. 290, 32 Sup. Ct. 
488, 56 L. ed. 771 (reversing 32 App 
Cas. [D C] 1); Marconi Wireless Tel 
Co. of America v. Simon, 227 Fed 906 



PATENTS 



191 



for such use.** On the other hand, officers of the United States, al- 
though acting within the scope of their authority, may be sued for 
damages for their acts of infringement'^ but cannot be enjoined." 

3. Joinder of Parties. — a. Plaintiff. — Only those who have an in- 
terest in the patent should be joined as plaintiffs in an infringe- 
ment case.** All legal owners must join in an action for infringe- 
ment,'" and all legal and equitable owners should join in a suit in 
equity.'^ Thus all joint owners must be brought in.** A simple licen- 
see is not a necessary party plaintiff,*' but he should be joined if his 
interests will be affected by the decree.** The patentee should be 
joined in an action by the assignee of a part of a patent right,*' and 
the owner of the patent at the time of a prior infringement should be 
joined as plaintiff in a suit by an assignee.** The heirs need not join 
the administrator of a deceased patentee.*' 

b. Defendant. — A corporation and an individual officer under 
whose authority the acts of infringement were committed or who ac- 
tively participated tlierein may be joined,** or a stockholder who con- 



56. Act of June 25, 1910, ch. 423; 
36 U. S. St. at L. 851; 8 V. S. Comp. 
St. 1916, §9465; Parnham v. United 
States, 49 Ct. CI. (TJ. S.) 19; Knapp 
V. United States, 46 Ct. CI. (U. S.) 601. 

[a] The use of an invention prior 
to this act, by the United States, could 
not be made the basis of a claim for 
compensation. Act of June 25, 1910, 
ch. 423; 36 U. S. St. at L. 85l; 8 U. 
S. Comp. St. 1916, §9465. 

57. Belknap v. Schild, 161 U. S. 10, 
16 Sup. Ct. 443, 40 L. ed. 599; 0am- 
meyer v. Newton, 94 U. S. 225, 24 L. 
ed. 72. 

58. Belknap v. Schild, 161 U. S. 10, 
16 Sup. Ct. 443, 40 L. ed. 599. 

59. Chisholm v. Johnson, 106 Fed. 
191. 

60. Tilghman v. Proctor, 125 U. S. 
136, 8 Sup. Ct. 894, 31 L. ed. 664; 
Tale Lock Mfg. Co. v. Sargent, 117 
U. S. 536, 6 Sup. Ct. 934, 29 L. ed. 
954; Tyler v. Tuel, 6 Cranch (U. S.) 
324, 3 L. ed. 237; Milwaukee Carving 
Co. V. Brunswick-Balke-Collender Co., 
126 Fed. 171, SI C. C. A. 175; Postal 
Tel. Cable Co. v. Netter, 102 Fed. 691; 
Owatonna Mfg. Co. v. Fargo & Co., 
94 Fed. 519; Van Orden v. Nashville, 
67 Fed. 331. 

61. Chisholm v. Johnson, 106 Fed. 
191; Clement Mfg. Co. v. Upson & Hart 
Co., 48 Fed. 471; Otis Bros. Mfg. Co. 
V. Crane Bros. Mfg. Co., 27 Fed. 550, 
afflrmed, 136 U. S. 646, 10 Sup. Ct. 
1072, 34 L. ed. 553. 

[a] The licensor is a necessary par- 
ty plaintiff in a suit to forfeit the li- 



cense brought by assignees holding the 
pS'teat as collateral security. Cook v. 
Bidwell, 8 Fed. 452. 

62. Southern Textile Mach. Co. v. 
Pay Stocking Co., 243 Fed. 917; Van 
Orden v. Nashville, 67 Ped. 331; Aa- 
pi-nwall Mfg. Co. v. Gill, 32 Ped. 697, 
appeal dismissed, 340 U. S. 669, 11 Sup. 
Ct. 1015, 35 L. ed. 597. 

[a] Must all be made plaintiffs in 
an action at law. Van Orden v. Nash- 
ville, 67 Fed. 331. 

[b] Where a co-owner files a coun- 
terclaim charging infringement of an- 
other patent of which he is a co-owner 
he must join the other owner, on the 
principle that all parties who are in- 
terested in the controversy must be 
.ioined in a suit in equity. Electric 
Boat Co. V. Lake Torpedo Boat Co., 
215 Fed. 377. 

63. Gayler v. Wilder, 10 How. (U. 
S.) 477, 13 L. ed. 504; Shepherd v. 
Deitsch, 1^8 Ped. 83; Peters v. Union 
Biscuit Co., 120 Ped. 679. 

64. Bowers v. Atlantic, Gulf & Pa- 
cific Co., 162 Ped. 895. 

65. Whittemore v. Cutter, 1 Gall. 
429, 29 Ped. Cas. No. 17,600. 

Joinder of patentee and exclusive 
licensee in an action by the latter, see 
supra, III, D, 1, d. 

66. Adams v. Bellaire Stamping Co., 
25 Ped. 270. 

67. Haarmann v. Lueders, 109 Fed. 
325; Hodge v. North Missouri E. B., 
1 Dill. 104, 12 Fed. Cas. No. 6,561. 

68. Thomson-Houston Electric Co. 
V. Bleotrbse Mfg. Co., 155 Ped. 543; 

Vol. XXI 



192 



PATENTS 



trols the corporation and plans the infringement may be made a de- 
fendant."' So, too, an agent and his principal may be sued jointly,'" 
as well as a manufacturer of an infringing device and his lesee," and 
a private corporation and its receiver.'^ But an agent or officer of a 
corporation who did not participate and is not interested in the in- 
fringement cannot be joined.'^ 

E. Joinder of Causes." — Causes of action of the same nature or 
arising out of the same acts may be joined in one suit,'^ but it is not 
permissible to join independent causes of action for infringement 
against different defendants,'^ nor can a suit for the infringement 
of more than one patent be maintained, as a general rule, unless such 
patents are used, or are capable of being used, conjointly in a single 
device or process or in furtherance of a common purpose/' 



Animarium Co. v. Neiman, 98 Fed. 14; 
Cleveland Forge & Bolt Co. v. United 
States Eolling-Stock Co., 41 Fed. 476; 
Iowa Barb Steel-Wire Co. v. Southern 
Barbed-Wire Co., 30 Fed. 123; Nichols 
V. Pearee, 7 Blatohf. 5, 18 Fed. Gas. 
No. 10,246. 

69. Whiting Safety Catch Co. v. 
Western Wheeled Scraper Co., 148 Fed. 
396. 

70. Lattimore Mfg. Co. v. Jones, 133 
Fed. 550. 

71. Wells V. Jacques, 29 Fed. Cas. 
No. 17,398. 

72. Union Switch & Signal Co. v. 
Philadelphia & E. E. Co., 69 Fed. 833. 

73. Hutter v. DeQ. Bottle Stopper 
Co., 128 Fed. 283, 62 C. C. A. 652; 
Matthews & Willard Mfg. Co. i>. Tren- 
ton Lamp Co., 73 Fed. 212. 

74. See generally the title "Join- 
der of Actions." 

Multifariousness, see infra, III, F, 
2, a, (VI). 

75. Eose Mfg. Co. v. E. A. White- 
house Mfg. Co., 193 Fed. 69; Prest-0- 
Lite Co. V. Avery Portable Lighting 
Co., 164 Fed. 60; Huntington Dry Pul- 
verizer Co. V. Virginia-Carolina Chemi- 
cal Co., 130 Fed. 558; Athertou Mach. 
Co. V. Atwood-Morrison Co., 102 Fed. 
949, 43 C. C. A. 72; Dunham v. Bent, 
72 Fed. 60; Stonemetz Printers' Mach. 
Co. V. Brown Folding Mach. Co., 46 
Fed. 72. 

[a] Infringement and unfair com- 
petition (1), when arising out of the 
same acts, may be joined in one suit 
(Miller Eubber Co. v. Behrend, 242 
Fed. 515, 155 C. C. A. 291; Sayrf v. 
McGill Ticket Punch Co., 200 Fed. 
771; Climax Lock & Ventilator Co. tt 
\.jax Hdw. Mfg. Co., 192 Fed. 126; 
Onondaga Indian Wigwam Co. v. Ka- 

Vol. XXI 



Noo-No Indian Mfg. Co., 182 Fed. 832j 
T. B. Woods Sons Co. v. Valley Iron 
Works, 166 Fed. 770; Weed v. Gay, 
160 Fed. 695; Jaros Hygienic Under- 
wear Co. V. Fleece Hygenic Underwear 
Co., 60 Fed. 622), but (2) not when 
they do not arise from the same acts. 
Ball & Socket Fastener "(To. v. Cohn, 
90 Fed. 664. 

[b] A demand to restrain the ille- 
gal use of a patented article may bo 
joined with one to restrain the use 
of the generic name of that article. 
Adam v. Folger, 120 Fed. 260, 56 C. 
C. A. 540. 

[c] An action for slander growing 
out of circulars concerning the pat- 
ent cannot be joined with an action 
for infringement. Fougeres v. Mur- 
barger, 44 Fed. 292. 

76. Taggart v. Bremner, 236 Fed. 
544, 149 C. C. A. 596; Jewell v. Phil- 
adelphia, 186 Fed. 639; Fichtel v. Bar- 
thel, 173 Fed. 489. 

77. Bose V. Hipsch, 77 Fed. 469, 23 
C. C. A. 246 (affirming 71 Fed. 881); 
Eose Mfg. Co. V. E. A. Whitehouse 
Mfg. Co., 193 Fed. 69; Louden Mach. 
Co. V. Montgomery Ward & Co., 96 
Fed. 232; Diamond Match Co. v. Ohio 
Match Co., 80 Fed. 117; Union Switch 
& Signal Co. v. Philadelphia & E. E. 
Co., 68 Fed. 913; Huber v. Myers San- 
itary Depot, 34 Fed. 752; Grifath v. 
Segar, 29 Fed. 707; Deering v. Winona 
Harvester Wks., 24 Fed. 90; Shiokle 
V. South St. Louis Foundry Co., 22 
Fed. 105; Consolidated Electric Light 
Co. V. Brush-Swan Electric Light Co., 
20 Fed. 502; Lilliendahl v. Detwiller, 
18 Fed. 176; Nellis v. Pennock Mfg. 
Co., 13 Fed. 451; Hayes «. Dayton, 8 
Fed. 702, 18 Blatchf. 420. 

[a] A conjoint use is apparent 



PATENTS 



193 



P. Pleading." ^- 1. In Actions at Law. — a. In General. — The 
pleadings in an action for infringement as the pleadings in other 
civil actions must conform to the requirements of the statute.''® 

b. Declaration or Complaints — In accordance with the general 
rules of pleading, a declaration for infringement of a patent should 
embody the essentials of a valid cause of action.^" Facts should be 
stated showing the patent,'^ the interest of the complainant therein,'^ 
the acts constituting the alleged infringement,*^ and that the defend- 
ant was notified of the infringement,'* or that the article produced 
by the plaintiff was marked with notice of the patent.'^ 



where one of two patents appears to 
be an improvement on the invention of 
the other. Moss v. McConway-Torley 
Co., 144 Fed. 128. 

[b] Distinct mecbainical devices 
which are capable of completely per- 
forming purposed fuhetions independ- 
ently of each other may be used con- 
jointly. Eose Mfg. Co. V. E. A. White- 
house Mfg. Co., 193 Fed. 69. 

78. See generally the titles "An- 
swers;" "Bills and Answers;" "Dec- 
claration and Complaint;" "Deni- 
als;" "Pleading;" and, other related 
articles. 

79, Celluloid Mfg. Co. v. American 
Z^yldnite Co., 34 Fed. 744. See Myers 
V. Cunningham, 44 Fed. 346; Cottier 
i). Sfimson, 20 Fed. 906; Cottier v. 
Stimsonj^lS Fed. 689, 9 Sawy. 435. 

80; MSy V. Mei-cef,, 30 Fed'. 24fl; 
Wilder v. McCormick, 2 Blatehf. 31, 
29 Fedi Cas. N*o. 17,650. 

[a]. The nature of the cause of aj&- 
tion whether for infringement of let- 
ters- patent or to recover damages tOt 
breach of a contract relating to such 
pa/tent, should appear. Schrade v. 
Camiilus- Cutlery Co., 24? Fed. 52^; 
Cottier v. Stimson, 18 Fed. 689, 9 
Sawy. 435. 

81. Graham v. Earl, 92 Fed. 155, 
34 C. C. A. 267; Wilder v. McCormick, 
2 BIart;chf. 31, 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,650. 

[a] A description of the patent- in 
detail a» .appearing in the specification 
is not required, the general descrip- 
tion in the patent being auffioient. 
Graham v. Earl, 92 Fed. 155, 34 C. C. 
A. 267; Tryon v. White, Pet. C. C. 
96, 24 Fed. Cas. No. 14,208; Gray V. 
James, Pet. C. C. 476, Id Fed. Cafe. 
No. 5,71 1. 

[b] That the rectoired steps in the 
Issuance of a patent, were takoB need 
not be alleged am they .are priesumed 
to have b^ii taken. WiTdef v. Mc- 
CbTmieK, Z BJatcW. 31, 29 Fed. Caft: 



No, 17,650; Vanhook v. Wood, 28 Fed. 
Cas. No. 16,854; Cutting v. Myers, 4 
Wash. C. C. 220, 6 Fed. Cas. No. 3,520. 

[c] An allegation of tae validity 
of the patent, not necessary. Vanhook 
V. Wood, 28 Fed. Cas. No. 16,854. 

[d] Profert of letters patent makes 
them a part of the declaration. Wil- 
der V. McCormick, 2 Blatehf. 31, 29 
Fed. CaS. No. 17,650; Pitts v. Whitman, 
2 Story 609, 19 Fed. Fed. Cas. No. 
11,196. 

[e] Oyer of letters patent (1) is 
not demanddble as a matter of right 
(Smith V. Ely, 5 McLean 76, 22 Fed. 
Cas. No. 13,043; SingSr v. Wilson, 22 
Fed. Cas. No. 12,ff0l), (2) though the 
contrary has been held. Cutting v. 
Myers, 4 Wash. C. C. 220, 6 Fed. Cas. 
No. 3,520. 

82; Vanhook v. Wood, 28 Fed. Cas. 
No. 16,854; Gray v. James, Pet. C. C. 
47&, 10 Fed. CaB. No. 5,719; Cutting 
V. Myers, 4 Wash. C. C. 220, 6 Fed. 
Cas. No. 3i5a0. 

[a] If brought tJy an assignee, the 
instrument of assignment need not be 
set out. Vanhook v. Wood, 28 Fed. 
Cas. No. 16,854. 

[b] If by a licensee, the license, its 
extent and limitations should be 
averred. Schrade v. Camillus Cutlery 
do., 242 Fed. 523. 

83. Schrade v. Camillus Cutlery Co., 
242 Fed. 523. 

[a] Contra Fonnam Statutl. — It 
need' not be alleged in the complaint 
that the acts complained of are oonira 
formam statuti. Parker v. Haworth, 
4 lileLrean 370, 18 Fed. Cas. No. 10,- 
738. 

81*. Streaf v. Finqh, 154 Fed. 378. 
See Gibson v. American Graphaphone 
Co., 234 Fed. 633, 148 C. C. A. 399. 

85; Streat v. Finch, Young & Mo- 
Conville 154 I'ed. 378; Sprague V. 
Biamharl-Dfeafte Co., 1313 Fed. 738. 

Vol. XXI 



194 



PATENTS 



c. Answer or Plea. — (I.) In General. — "Want of patentability is 
available as a defense without bejng pleaded,'* but there is no objection 
to it being pleaded specially.^' The statute of limitations** being a 
condition on the right of recovery for an infringement, does not have 
to be specially pleaded.*' Nor do other statutes relating to infringe- 
ment,'" or the defense of a paramount license in an action between 
assignees,'^ or any irregularity in the proceedings in the patent office,'^ 
unless otherwise required by statute.'^ The defendant cannot specially 
plead matter already pleaded under the general issue with notice,** 
but any other special defense not enumerated by the statute may be 
pleaded specially in the usu-al way,"^ irrespective of the plea of the 
general issue, with or without notice.'* The defense of a bona fide pur- 
chase for value must state the amount of the consideration.'' 

(II.) The General Issue With or Without Notice. — (A.) In General.ss 
In an action at law for infringement the defendant may plead the 
general issue." But the statute provides that the general issue must 
be accompanied with notice as to certain specified defenses,^ as that 
for the purpose of deceiving the public the description and specification 
filed by the patentee in the patent office was made to contain less than 
the whole truth relative to his invention or discovery, or more than 



86. May v. Juneau, 137 U. S. 408, 
11 Sup. Gt. 102, 34 L. ed. 729; Handy 
V. Golden State & Miners' Iron Wks., 
127 U. S. 370, 8 Sup. Ct. 1275, 32 L. 
ed. 207; Slawson v. Grand Street, etc. 
E. Co., 107 V. S. 649, 2 Sup. Ct. 663, 
27 L. ed. 576; Dunbar v. Myers, 94 
U. S. 187, 24 L. ed. 34. 

87. Brickill v. Hartford,, S7 Fed. 
216. 

88. 29 U. S. St. at L. 694; IT. S. 
Eev. St., §4921 (as amended March 
3, 1897, ch. 391, §6); 8 U. S. Comp. 
St., 1916, §9467. 

89. Peters v. Hanger, 134 Fed. 586, 
67 0. C. A. 386, reversing 127 Fed. 820, 
62 C. C. A. 498. 

90. Kneass v. Schuylkill Bank, 4 
Wash. C. C. 9, 14 Fed. Gas. No. 7,875. 

91. Day v. New England Car Co., 
3 Blatchf. 179, 7 Fed. Cas. No. 3,687. 

92. Eagleton Mfg. Co. ». West, 
Bradley & Gary Mfg. Co., Ill U. S. 
490, 4 Sup. Gt. 593, 28 L. ed. 493; 
Kneaas v. Schuylkill Bank, 4 Wash. 
C. G. 9, 14 Fed. Cas. No. 7,875. 

93. See 29 U. S. St. at L. 692; U. 
S. Rev. St. §4920 (amended March 3, 
1897, c. 391, §2); 8 U. S. Comp. St. 
1916, §9466. 

94. Read v. Miller, 2 Biss. 12, 20 
Fed. Cas. No. 11,610; Latta v. Shawk, 
1 Bond 259, 14 Fed. Cas. No. 8,1J6. 

95. Cottier v. Stimson, 18 Fed. 689, 
9 Sawy. 435. See also Grant v. Eay- 

Vol. XXI 



mond, 6 Pet. (U. S.) 218, 8 L. ed. 376. 
[a] Fraud in obtaining the patent 
must be specially pleaded. Blake v. 
StafiCord, 6 Blatchf. 195, 3 Fed. Gas. 
No. 1,504. 

96. Cottier v. Stimson, 18 Fed. 689, 
9 Sawy. 435. 

97. Secombe v. Campbell, 2 Fed. 
357, 18 Blatchf. 108. 

98. See the title "Denials." 

99. 29 U. S. St. at L. 692; U. S. 
Bev. St., §4920 (as amended March 3, 
1897, ch. 391, §2); 8 U. S. Gomp. St.^ 
1916, §9466; Grant v. Raymond, 6 Pet. 
(U. S.) 218, 8 L. ed. 376; Root V Ball, 
4 McLean 177, 20 Fed. Cas. No. 12,- 

UoO> 

1. 29 U. S. St. at L. 692; U. S. Eev. 
St. §4920 (as amended March 3, 1897. 
fJl^' ^^^' ^ U. S. Comp. St., 1916 
§9466; Grant v. Raymond, 6 Pet. (U. 
S.) 218, 8 L. ed. 376. 

[a] The inotice must go to the 
whole patent; and not merely to a 
special claim or feature- of it. West- 
lake V. Cartter, 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,- 
451; Kelleher v. Darling, 4 Cliff. 424. 
14 Fed. Cas. No. 7,653. 

[Ts] Suit in Equity for Infringe 
ment.— The special defenses available 
to the defendant in actions at law for 
infringement under the general issue 
with notice are likewise available in 
a suit in equity for infringement when 
notice is given in the answer. See the 



PATENTS 



195 



is necessary to produce the desired effect ;' that he had surreptitiously 
or unjustly obtained the patent for that which was in fact invented by 
another, who was using reasonable diligence in adapting and perfecting 
the same ;' that it has been patented or described in some printed pub- 
lication prior to his supposed invention or discoverv thpypof, or more 
than two years prior to his application for a patent therefor;* that 
he was not the original and first inventor or discoverer of any mate- 
rial and substantial part of the thing patented;^ that it had been in 
public use or on sale in this country for more than two years before 
his application for a patent, or had been abandoned to the public* 
(B.) Contents op Notice. — Notices as to proof of previous invention, 
knowledge, or use of the thing patented, must state the names' of the 



statute swpra, and Bates v. Coe, 98 
U. S. 31, 25 L. ed. 68. 

2. Celluloid Mfg. Co. v. RusBell, 37 
F«d. 676; Celluloid Mfg. Co. v. Amer- 
ican Zylonlte Co., 34 Fed. 744; Eagle- 
ton Mfg. Co. V. West, Bradley & Cary 
Mfg. Co., 2 Fed. 774, 18 Blatchf. 218. 

3. Yates v. Huson, 8 App. Cas. (D. 
C.) 93. 

4. Blanchard v. Putnam, 8 Wall. (U. 
S.) 420, 19 L. ed. 433. 

[a] It is insufacient to aver that 
the alleged invention had been pre- 
viously patented, on certain dates, to 
other parties, it being necessary to fol- 
law the statute and aver that the pat- 
ent had been patented or described in 
some printed publication prior to his 
supposed invention or discovery. 
Brickill v. Hartford, 57 Fed. 216. 

5. Teese v. Huntingdon, 23 How. 
(U. S.) 2, 16 L. ed. 479; Vacuum Clean- 
er Co. V. Dunn, 189 Fed. 634; Meyers 
V. Busby, 32 Fed. 670, 13 Sawy. 33; 
La Baw v. HawEins, 14 Fed. Cas. No. 
7,960; Geier v. Goetinger, 10 Fed. Cas. 
No. 5,299. 

[a] Statute Must Be Followed. 
If the statute is not complied with 
testimony cannot be introduced show- 
ing that the patentee is not the in- 
ventor of his machine. Philadelphia 
& T. E. Co. V. Stimpson, 14 Pet. (IT. 
S.) 448, 10 L. ed. 535; Vacuum Cleaner 
Co. V. Dunn, 189 Fed. 634; Foote v. 
Silsby, 9 Fed. Cas. No. 4,916, affirmed, 
14 How. 218, 14 L. ed. 394. 

6. Woodbury Patent Planing Mach. 
Co. V. Keith, ioi V. 8. 479, 25 L. ed. 
939; Bates v. Coe, 98 U. 8. 31, 25 L. ed. 
68; Eoemer v. Simon, 95 TJ. S. 214, 
24 L. ed. 384; Agawam Woolen Co. 
V. Jordan, 7 Wall. (tl. S.) 583, 19 L. 
ed. 177; Teese v. Huntingdon, 23 How. 
(U. 8.) 2, 16 L. ed. 479; Kennedy v. 



Solar Eefining Co., 69 Fed. 715; Meyers 
V. Busby, 32 Fed. 670, 13 Sawy. 33. 

[a] The Statute Must Be Strictly 
Complied With.— Philadelphia & T. E. 
Co. V. Stimpson, 14 Pet. (U. S.) 448, 
10 L. ed. 535. 

[b] It is insufficient to aver that 
the alleged invention was in use and 
for sale before the application for a 
patent; it must also be averred that 
there was an abandonment, or that 
the sale or use was more than two 
years prior to the application. Boot 
V. Ball, 4 McLean 177, 20 Fed. Cas. 
No. 12,035. 

7. Saunders v. Allen, 60 Fed. 610, 
9 C. C. A. 157; Corrugated Metal Co. 
V. Pattison, 197 Fed. 577; Coleman v. 
Liesor, 6 Fed. Cas. No. 2,984. 

[a] The aim or purpose of the no- 
tice is to save the patentee from the 
necessity of making useless inquiries 
and researches, and to enable him to 
fix with precision the matters of de- 
fense relied on by the defendant, and 
the notice should be sufficiently full 
and particular as reasonably to answer 
or fulfill that purpose. Silsby v. Foote, 
14 How. (tr. S.) 218, 14 L. ed. 394 
(affirming Foote v. Silsby, 1 Blatchf. 
445, 9 Fed. Cas. No. 4,9i6); Smith v. 
Frazer, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 13,048; Brown 
V. Hall, 6 Blatchf. 401, 4 Fed. Cas. 
No. 2,008. 

[b] A drawing of the device al- 
leged to be in anticipation of the 
plaintiff's patent need not be attached 
to the notice, since if it be a concrete 
thing which may be made the subject 
of an exhibit the plaintiff may ask to 
have it submitted in advance for the 
inspection of his expert witnesses, thus 
preventing surprise. Todd v. Whit- 
aker, 217 Fed. 319. 

Veil, XXI 



196 



PATENTS 



patentees, the dates of their patents,' and when granted;* tite names 
and residences of the persons alleged to have invented,^" or to have 
had prior knowledge of the thing pa!tented,^^ and where^^ and by whom 
it had been used.^^ Notice of the names of witnesses intended to be ' 
called by defendant is not required.^* The time of the previous use 
does not have to be stated,^° nor is the use of such defense limited to 
any particular time.^* 

(C.) TIME OP Seevice. —Notice of a Special defense must be served 
on the plaintiff or his attorney at least thirty days before the trial." 

(B.) Form op Notice. —The noticer of the defense of special mat- 



8. Phillips V. Page, 24 How. (V. S.) 
164, 16 L. ed. 639; Saunders v. Allen, 
60 Fed. 610, 9 C. C. A. 157. 

[a] Prior puUication alleged' to 
have contained a description of the 
plaintiff's patented device or process 
must be described Bufieiently to be 
identified, or a copy filed with the no- 
tice, but a patent by the United Statea 
is sufficiently indicated by giviingi its 
number, date, and the name of the 
patentee. Corrugated Metal Co. v. Pat- 
tison, 197 Fed. 577. 

9. Phillips V. Page, 24 How. (U. S.) 
164, 16 L. ed. 639. 

10. Woodbury Patent Planing 
M-ach. Co. V. Keith, 101 V. S. 479,, 25 
L. ed. 939; Meyers v. Busby, 32 Fed. 
670, 13 Sawy. 33; Allis v. Buckstaff; 

13 Fed. 879; Wilton v. Railroads, 1 
Wall. Jr. 192, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 17,857. 

11. Eoemer v. Simon, 95 tJ. S. 214, 
24 L. ed. 384; Philadelphia, W. & B. 
E. Co. V. BuboiB, 12 Wall. (U. S.) 47, 
20 L. ed. 265; Seymour v. Osborne, 11 
Wall. (U. S.) 516, 20 L. ed. 33; Phil- 
lips V. Page, 24 How. (TJ. S.) 164, 16 
L. ed. 639; Tatum v. Eby, 60 Fed. 
408. 

12. Agawam Woolen Co. v. Jordan, 
7 Wall. (U. S.) 583, 19 L. ed. 177j 
Phillips V. Page, 24 How. (U. S.) 164, 
16 L. ed. 639; Teese v. Huntingdon, 
23 How. (TJ. S.) 2, 16 L. ed'. 479; 
Silsby V. Foote, 14 How. (TJ. S.) 218, 

14 L. ed. 394 (afwming Foote v. Sils- 
■bj, 1 Blatchf. 445, 9 Fed. Cas. No. 
4,916); Corrugated Metal Co. v. Pat- 
tison, 197 Fed. 577; Diamond Match 
Co. V. Schenck, 71 Fed. 521, affirmed, 
77 Fed. 208, 23 C. G. A. 122. 

[a] Reference to a comty where 
a prior use occurred is not sufficiently 
definite as to plae*. Hays v. Sulsor, 
1 Bond 279, 11 Fed^ Cas. Na 6,271. 

13. American Hidff & Leather Split- 
ting & Dressing Macb. Coi v. Ameainan 

• Vol. XXI 



Tool & Maeh. Co., 1 Holmes 503, 1 Fed. 
Cas. No. 302. 

[a] Prior Use With Inventor's 
Ccbsent. — Where the. grior use relied 
on is a use by the inventor, or by oth- 
er persons with his consent, it is not 
necessary to notify him of the names 
of the persons using the invention, or 
of the places where used. American 
Hide & Leather Splitting & Dressing 
Mach. Coi. V. American Tool & JJlach. 
Co., 1 Holmes 503, 1 Fed. Cas. No. 
302-. 

[b] On Issue of Patentability. 
For the purpose of showing the inva- 
lidity of a patent it is not necessary 
to file the statutory notice containing 
the names of places and persons where 
and by whom the invention had been 
used or known. Orr v. Merrill 1 
Woodb. & M. 376,. 18 Fed. Gas. No. 
10,591. 

14. Woodbury Patent Planing Mach. 
Co. V. Keith, 101 U. S. 479, 25 L. ed. 
939; Eoemer v. Simon, 95 TJ. S. 214, 24 
L. ed. 384; AUis ». Buckstaff, 13 Fed. 
879; Wilton v. Bailroads, 1 WaU Jr. 
192,, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 17,857. 

15. Phillips V. Page, 24 How. (TJ. 
S.) 164, 16 L. ed. 639. Compare Cor- 
rugated Metal Co. v. Pattison, 197 
Fed. 577, holding that time and place 
should be stated. 

16. Evans v. Eaton,. Pet. C. C 322 
8 Fed. Cas. No. 4,559. ' 

17. Westlake v. Cartter, 29 Fed 
Cas. No. 17,451. 

[a] In Term Time.^The notice 
may be filed in term time provided it 
is_ filed full thirty days before the 
trial. Brunswick v. Holzalb, 4 Fed. 
Gas. No. 2,057. 

[b] WBere the day of trial is held 
to be the first day of the term, the 
notice' must tee served thirty days be- 
fore the fifst day of the term in order 
to be available. Westlake v. Cartter, 
29 Hed. Cas, No. 17,451. 



PATENTS 



197 



ter as required by the statute must be in writing.^' 

(E.) Permission To Serve. — An order of court for leave to serve no- 
tice of speeial matter to be set up as a defense is unnecessary,^* and a 
second notice may also be served without leave if accomplished before 
the expiration of the time limited for such service.'^'' 

(F.) Verification. -The notice of defenses of special matter re- 
quired by the statute does not have to be verified.^^ 

(G.) Waiver op Notice. — Failure to file the required notice may be 
waived by failing to object to the evidence offered to prove the. de- 
fense in question.*^ 

2. In Suits in Equity, — a. The Bill. — (I.) In General. -A bill 
for the infringement of a patent should be drawn in accordance with 
the rules governing bills in equity generally,^° and as in other eases 
the averments in the bill should justify a resort to equity/* and ex- 
cuse any apparent delay in bring^ing the suit.^^ 

(II.) Particular Averments. —The pleader should set forth facts suf- 
ficient to show the existence of his patent,^^ the nature^' of his inven- 



18. 29 tr. S. St. at L. 692; U. S. 
Eev. St., §4920; 8 U. S. Comp. St., 
1916, §9466. 

19. Teese v. Huntingdon, 23 How. 
(U. S.) 2, 16 L. ed. 479. 

20. Teese v. Huntingdon, _23 How. 
(U. S.) 2, 16 L. ed. 479. 

21. Campbell v. New York, 45 Fed. 
243. 

22. Zane v. SofEe, 110 TJ. S. 200, 3 
Sup. Ct. 562, 28 L. ed. 119; Loom Co. 
V. Higgins, 105 U. S. 580, 26 L. ed. 
1177; Roemer v. Simon, 95 TJ. S. 214, 
24 L. ed. 384 (affirming 20 Fed. Cas. 
No. 11,997); Monroe v. Bresee, 239 Fed. 
727, 152 C. C. A. 561; Campbell v. 
Skinner, 236 Fed. 359; Crouch v. Speer, 
6 Fed. Cas. No. 3,438. 

23. See the title " Bills and An- 
swers." 

24. American Cable B. Co. v. Chi- 
cago City R. Co., 41 Fed. 522; Ger- 
main V. Wilgus, 67 Fed. 597, 14 C. C. 
A. 561; Campbell v. Ward, 12 Fed. 150; 
Vaughan v. Central Pac R. Co., 4 Sawy. 
280, 28 Fed. Cas. No. 16,897. 

25. American Thermos Bottle Co. v. 
Semple, 222 Fed. 942; Edison Electric 
Light Co. V. Equitable Life Assur. Soc, 
55 Fed. 478. See Kaolatype Engrav- 
ing Co. V. Hoke, 30 Fed. 444, and the 
title "Laches." 

[a] But diligence need not be al- 
leged when the suit is commenced 
within the period limited for begin- 
ning infringement suits. Thomson- 
Houston Electric Co. V. Electrose Mfg. 
Co., 155 Fed. 543. 

26. Zenith Carbureter Co. v. Strom- 



berg Motor Devices Co., 205 Fed. 158; 
Bowers v. Bucyrus Co., 132 Fed. 39. 

27. Acme Steel Goods Co. v. Ameri- 
can Metal Fasteners Co., 206 Fed. 478; 
Stirrat v. Excelsior Mfg. Co. 44 Fed. 
142. 

[a] When the state of the prior 
art, such as (1) the actual industrial 
conditions and progress, are material 
to plaintiff's cause, as in the case of 
a patented improvement, it should be 
pleaded. American Fibre-Chamois Co. 
V. Buckskin-Fibre Co., 72 Fed. 508, 18 
C. C. A. 662; Acme Steel Goods Co. v. 
American Metal Fasteners Co., 206 
Fed. 478 ; Adrian Wire ' Fence Co. v. 
Jackson Fence Co., 190 Fed. 195; Still- 
well V. McPherson, 172 Fed. 151; Nei- 
dich V. Fosbenner, 108 Fed. 266; Krick. 
V. Jansen, 52 Fed. 823; Bottle Seal 
Co. V. DeLa Vergne Bottle & Seal 
Co., 47 Fed. 59. (2) Reference to prior 
patenis to the same inventor is prop 
er in showing the state of the art and 
history of the invention. Steam-Gauge 
& Lantern Co. v. McRoberts, 26 Fed. 
765. 

[b] Either by way of averments 
or as an exhibit, a substantial descrip- 
tion of the invention, should be given. 
Welsbach Light Co. v. Rex Incandes- 
cent Light Co., 87 Fed. 477; Stirrat 
V. Excelsior Mfg. Co., 44 Fed. 142; 
Wise v. Grand Ave. E. Co., 33 Fed. 277; 
Post «. T. C. Richards Hdw. Co., 25 Fed. 
905. 

_fp] A mere reference to a patent, 
giving only its date, not mentioning 
its number or record by book and page 

Vol. XXI 



198 



PATENTS 



tion, or improvement,^^ and that the letters patent were validly is- 
sued^° to the first inventor, or in other words the pleader must aver 
facts to show the originality of the invention,^" and negative the exist- 
ence of those facts which if existing would defeat its patentability.^^ 



in the patent office, is insufficient. 
Electrolibration Co. v. Jackson, 52 
Fed. 773. 

[d] The particular claims of the 
patent need not be specified. Morton 
Trust Co. V. American Car & Foundry 
Co., 129 Fed. 916, 64 C. C. A. 367 
{reversed in 121 Fed. 132); Johnson v. 
Columbia Phonograph Co., 106 Fed. 
319. 

[e] Specifying the particular pat- 
ent relied on, see Coulston v. H. Franke 
Steel Eange Co., 221 Fed. 669; Gen- 
oral Elec. Co. V. American Brass 
& Copper Co., 209 Fed. 237; Luten 
V. Sharp, 200 Fed. 151; Foundation 
Coi V. O'Eourke Engineering Const. 
Co., 171 Fed. 425; Eastwood v. Cutler- 
Hammer Mfg. Co., 148 Fed. 718. 

[f] When certain parts of the in- 
vention are alleged to have been in- 
fringed, it must appear that they are 
material parts. Moss v. McConway- 
Torley Co., 144 Fed. 128. 

[g] If\a plan or photograph is 
filed, a specific description of a de- 
sign patent is unnecessary. National 
Casket Co. v. New York & Brooklyn 
Casket Co., 185 Fed. 533; Cheney Bros. 
V. Weinreb, 185 Fed. 531. 

Profert, see infra, III, F, 2, a, (V). 

28. Peterson v. Wooden, 3 McLean 
248, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 11,038. 

29. Bonney Supply Co. v. Heltzel, 
243 Fed. 399; Brayley v. Braunstein 
Bros. Co., 237 Fed. 671; Maxwell Steel 
Vault Co. V. National Casket Co., 205 
Fed. 515; Fichtel iJ.^Barthel, 173 Fed. 
489; Moss v. MeOonway-T'oHey ' Co., 
144 Fed. 128; American Graphophone 
Co. V. National Phonograph Co., 127 
Fed. 349; Elliott & Hatch Book-Type- 
writer Co. V. Fisher Typewriter Co., 
109 Fed. 330. 

[a] Rule twenty-five does not 
change the previously settled require- 
ment of distinct allegations of compli- 
ance with the statute. Such allega- 
tions were previously held necessary 
because they were of facts essential 
to tlie validity of the patent sued on, 
and therefo're to the relief sought. 
If essential to this extent they must 
be statements of ultimate facts, as 
distinguished from statements of mere 

Vol. XXI 



evidence. Schaum v. Copley-Plaza 
Operating Co., 243 Fed. 924; MaxweU 

! Steel Vault Co. v. National Casket Co., 
205 Fed. 515. 

I [b] That the steps necessary to 
the issuance of the patent were taken 
(1) is presumed, and they need not bo 
alleged (Bowers v. Bucyrus Co., 132 
Fed. 39); thus (2) it is not necessary 
to allege that an application was duly 
made (Bowers v. Bucyrus Co., 132 
Fed. 39), or (3) that the patent was 
recorded in the patent office. Luten v. 
Dover Const. Co., 189 Fed. 405. 

[c] Issuance in name of the United 
States and under the seal of the pat- 
ent office and the signature of the 
commissioner, must be averred. East- 
wood V. Cutler-Hammer Mfg. Co., 148 
Fed. 718. 

[d] Grounds for obtaining a reis- 
sue need not be stated. Spaeth v. Bar- 
ney, 22 Fed. 828. 

[e] Averments on information and 
belief, insufficient. Rubber Tire Wheel 
Co. V. Davie, 100 Fed. 85. 

30. Schaum v. Coplev-Plaza Oper- 
ating Co., 243 Fed. 924; Brayley v. 
Braunstein Bros. Co., 237 Fed. 671; 
Maxwell Steel Vault Co. v. National 
Casket Co., 205 Fed.- 515; Miller v. 
Smith, 5 Fed. 359; Young v. Lipp- 
man, 9 Blatchf. 277, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 
18,160; Sullivan v. Eedfield, 1 Paine 
441, 23 Fed. Cas. No. 13,595. 

[a] The date (1) of the invention 
need not be pleaded. Todd v. Whita- 
ker, 217 Fed. 319. Compars Rubber- 
Tire Wheel Co. v. Davie, 100 Fed. 85. 
(2) But the original date of the ap- 
plication, when difCerent from that on 
which a patent wag issued, should be 
pleaded if material to meet a defense 
of prior use. Corrington v. Westing- 
house Air Brake Co., 178 Fed. 711 
103 C. C. A, 479. 

[b] A sufficient allegation that the 
plaintiff was the "original and first 
inventor or discoverer" is the aver- 
ment that plaintiff was, "within the 
meaning of the statutes of the United 
States then in force, the inventor" of 
the patented process. Schaum v. Cop- 
ley-Plaza Operating Co., 243 Fed. 924. 

31. Bayley v. Braunstein Bros. Co., 



PATENTS 



199 



The bill should also aver facts to show complainant's title or owner- 
ship^^ at the time the bill is filed,'^ and if there is a prior adjudica- 
tion establishing the patentee's title, the facts of such adjudication 
should be set forth.^* 



237 Fed. 671; Maxwell Steel Vault Co. 
V. National Cagket Co., 205 Fed. 515; 
Elliott & Hatch Book-Typewriter Co. 
V. Fisher Typewriter Co., 109 Fed. 330; 
Rubber Tire Wheel Co. v. Davie, 100 
Fed. 85; Diamond Match Co. v. Ohio 
Match Co., 80 Fed. 117; Hutton v. 
Star Slide Seat Co., 60 Fed. 747; Rosa 
V. Ft. Wayne, 58 Fed. 404; Hanlon v. 
Primrose, 56 Fed. 600; Goebel v. Amer- 
ican Ey. Supply Co., 55 Fed. 828; Con- 
solidated Brake-Shoe Co. v. Detroit 
Steel & Spring Co., 47 Fed. 894; Coop 
V. Dr. Savage Physical D. Inst., 47 
Fed. 899; Blessing v. John Trageser 
Steam Copper Works, 34 Fed. 753. 
Contra, Moss v. McConway-Torley Co., 
144 Fed. 128. 

[n] That the patent sued on has 
not been patented, or described (1) in 
any printed publication before his in- 
vention or discovery thereof or more 
than two years prior to his applica- 
tion, should be averred (Electric Goods 
Mfg. Co. V. Benjamin Electric Mfg. 
Co., 169 Fed. 832; Victor Talking 
Mach. Co. V. Leeds & Catlin Co., 165 
Fed. 931; Moss ». McConway-Torley 
Co., 144 Fed. 128; Rubber Tire Wheel 
Co. V. Davie, 100 Fed. 85; Diamond 
Match Co. V. Ohio Match Co., 80 Fed. 
117; Hutton v. Star Slide Seat Co., 
60 Fed. 747; Hanlon v. Primrose, 56 
Fed. 600; Goebel v. American Ey. Sup- 
ply Co., 55 Fed. 825; Overman Wheel 
Co. V. Elliott Hickory Cycle Co., 49 
Fed. 859. Contra, American Cereal Co. 
V. Oriental Food Co., 145 Fed. 649), 
or (2) that it had not been in pub- 
lic use or on sale in this country for 
more -than two years prior to his ap- 
plication for a patent. Hayes-Young 
Tie Plate Co. v. St. Louis Transit Co., 
130 Fed. 900 (affirmed in 137 Fed. 
80, 70 C. C. A. 1); American Grapho- 
phone Co. V. National Phonograph Co., 
127 Fed. 349; Elliott & Hatch Book- 
Typewriter Co. V. Fisher Typewriter 
Co., 109 Fed. 330; Eubber-Tire Wheel 
Co. V. Davie, 100 Fed. 85; Ross v. Ft. 
Wayne, 58 Fed. 404; Krick v. Jansen, 
52 Fed. 823; Coop «. Dr. Savage Physi- 
cal D. Inst., 47 Fed. 899; ConBolidated 
Brake-Shoe Co. v. Detroit Steel & 
Spring Co., 47 Fed. 894; Nathan Mfg. 



Co. V. Craig, 47^ Fed. 522; Blessing v. 
John Trageser Steam Copper Works, 
34 Fed. 753. 

32. Schaum v. Copley-Plaza Operat- 
ing Co., 243 Fed. 924; Southern Tex- 
tile Mach. Co. V. Pay Stocking Co., 
243 Fed. 917; Maxwell Steel Vault 
Co. V. National Casket Co., 205 Fed. 
515; Zenith Carbureter Co. v. Strom- 
berg Motor Devices Co., 205 Fed. 158; 
NouTse V. Allen, 4 Blatchf. 376, 18 Fed. 
Cas. No. 10,367. 

[a] General averment of title, suf- 
ficient. Arrott V. Standard Mfg. Co., 
113 Fed. 1014. 

[b] Attaching a copy of the patent 
to the bill without any averment or 
showing as to ownership ia not suffi- 
cient. American Graphophone Co. v. 
National Phonograph Co., 127 Fed. 
349. 

[c] The various links in a chain of 
title need not be shown. Sirocco Engi- 
neering Co. V. Monarch Ventilator Co., 
184 Fed. 84; American Graphophone 
Co. V. National Phonograph Co., 127 
Fed. 349; Atherton Mach. Co. v. At- 
wood-Morrison Co., 102 Fed. 949, 43 
C. C. A. 72; Edison Electric Light Co. 
V. Packard Electric Co., 61 Fed. 1002. 

[d] A sufficient showing of plain- 
tiff's interest is illustrated by the al- 
legations, coupled with profert and ex- 
hibit, that by mesne assignment and 
grant prior to the suit the plaintiff 
/became and now is the party inter- 
ested in said letters patent, all of 
which will more fully appear from said 
assignment and grant, now produced 
and shown in court. Clement Mfg. 
Co. V. Upson & Hart Co., 40 Fed. 471. 

33. Lettelier v. Mann, 79 Fed. 81; 
Krick V. Jansen, 52 Fed. 823. 

34. Peters v. Chicago Biscuit Co., 
142 Fed. 779; American Bell Tel. Co. 
V. Southern Tel. Co., 34 Fed. 803; 
Steam-Gauge & Lantern Co. v. McRob- 
erts, 26 Fed. 765; Parker v. Brant, 1 
Fish. Pat. Gas. 58, 18 Fed. Cas. No. 
10,727. 

Pleading former adjudication, see 
the title "Judgments." 

[a] Where a preliminary injunction 
is sought, the right thereto may de- 
pend on a prior adjudication establish- 

Vol. XXI 



200 



PATENm 



The acts of infringement must be alleged,^', sund in certain cases 
also facts showing notice to the defendants.^* But it is not necessary 
to allege the extent of the plaintiff's loss or damage/' 

(III.) Prayer. -The bill should as a rule contain a prayer for 
process.25 Damages need not be prayed for eo nomine, but may be 
granted under a general prayer for relief.''^ 

(IV.) Verification. -The bill need not be verified,*" unless special 
relief pending the ,suit is desired.*^ 

(V.) Profert of Patent. — A patent may be made part of a bill for 
its infringement, by profert,*^ a general description of the invention 



ing title to the patent. Peters v. Chi- 
cago Biscuit Co., 142 Fed. 779. See 
Wirt V. Hicks, 46 Fed. 71. 

35. Asherbft v. Boston & L. E. E. 
Co., 97 U. S. 189, 24 L. ed. 982; Zenith 
Carburetor Co. v. Stromberg Motor 
Devices Co., 205 Fed. 158; Tuok-er v. 
Tucker Mfg. Co., 4 Cliff. 397, 24 Fed. 
Gas. No. 14,227. 

[a] A general allegation to the ef- 
fect that the defenijant has infringed, 
without specifying in what particulars, 
is sufficient. American Bell Tel. Co. v. 
Southern Tel. Co., 34 Fed. 803; Miller 
V. Smith, 5 Fed. 359; Turrell v. Cain- 
merrer, 24 Fed. Gas. No. 14,266; 
Thatcher Heating Co. v. Oarbon Stove 
Co., 23 Fed. Gas. No. 13,864; Haven 
V. Brown, 11 Fed. Gas. No. 6,228. 

{fc] ^That it was: during tlie life of 
patent that the infringement occurred 
must be shown. American Diamond 
Eock-Boring Co. v. Rutland Marble Co., 
2 Fed. 355, 18 Blatchf. 147. 

[c] Thp extent of the infringement 
need not be averred. Luten v. Dover 
Cpnst. Co., 189 Fed. 405; Fischer v. 
Hayes, 6 Fed. 76, 19 Blatcif. 26. 

[d] When the plaintiff is a. lipen- 
sor the bill must affirmatively show 
that the defendant is not usinig the 
invention under authodity of the li- 
censee. Still v'. Eeading, 9 Fed. 40, ' 
4 Woods 845. 

[e] Averments Must Be Positive. 
Fichtel V. Barthel, 173 Fed. 489; Mur- 
ray Co. V. Continental Gin Co., 126 Fed. 
533; Elliott & Hatch Book-Typewidter 
Co. V. Fisher Typewriter Co., 109 Fed. 
330; WyckofE v. Wagner Typewiriter 
Co., 88 Fed. 515. 

36. Westinghouse Electric & Mfg. 
Co. V. Gondit Electrical Mfg. Co., 159 
Fed. 154. 

[a] Notice to the defendant of the 
infringement must be averred, unless 
it appears from the bill that the article 
wais marked as patented. Wtesting- 

Vol. XXI 



house Electric & Mfg. Co. v. Condit 
Electrical Mfg. Co., 159 Fed. 154. 

37. American ftraphophone Co. v. 
National Phonogriaph Co., 127 Fed. 
349; Wirt V. Hicks, 46 Fed. 71. 

38, Goebel v. American By. Supply 
Co., 55 Fed. 825. 

39. Emerson v. Simm, 8 Fed. Cas. 
No. 4,443. 

40. United States Mitis Co. v. De- 
troit Steel & Spring Co., 122 Fed. 863, 
59 C. C. A. 589. 

41. Eule 25. 

[a] Where injunction is sought 
verification is necessary. Scheuerle v. 
Ouepiece Bifocal Lens Co., 241 Fed. 
270. 

[b] An assignee may make affida- 
vit of the fact that the patentee was 
the first and original imventor of the 
thing patented. Thompson v. Jewett, 
23 Fed. Cas. No. 18,961. 

[c] Verification by the eqiuitable 
owner of the patent, who, being im- 
mediately injured by the infringement, 
is joined in a suit for infringement with 
the iiolder of the legal title. Goodyear 
V. Allyn, 6 Blatchf. 33, 10 Fed. Gas. 
No. 5,555; Bowers v. Bucyrus Co., 132 
Fed. 89; Edison v. American Muto- 
soope & Biograph Co., 127 Fed. 361; 

42. Fowler v. City of New York, 
121 Fed. 747, 58 C. C. A. 113 {af- 
firming 110 Fed. 749); Diekerson v. 
Greene, 53 Fed. 247; ^ogart v. Hind«, 
25 Fed. 484. 

fja] That "the patent and specifica- 
tion are ready to (be produced in 
court,'' is equivailent i.o a formal prof- 
ert. Wilder v. McCoimick, 2 Blatchf. 
31, 29 Fed. Gas. No. 17,650. 

[b] The mere mention in the bill 
of prior patents issued the same pat- 
entee is not a profert of them. Bow- 
ers 1!. Bucyrus Co., 182 Fed. 39. 

[c] But a profert of a reissue, the 
o4gio*l being (rrferred to ty date and 
number, m sUso « profert of the lat- 



PATENTS 



201 



in ihe bill being sufficient in sueh case.*' 

(VI.) Multifariousness.^* — To avoid multifariousness in a bill for the 
infringement of two or more patents, tbere should be an allegation 
of conjoint use hy the defendant in a single device or process or in 
furtherance of a common purpose.*^ But it is not necessary to allege 
that two infringing devices used in one apparatus are used cofajointly 
or connected together.** When a suit for ijifringement is against two 
or more defendants the bill must show joint eonduct or allege a joint 
liability.*^ 

(VII.) Discovery. -The general rules relating to the doctrine of 
discovery apply to suits for infringement.'** Whether or not the de- 
fendant will be ordered to permit an inspection of his alleged in- 
fringing machine depends largelj^ upon the circumstances of each case, 



ter. Ediflon v. American , Mutoscope 
& Biograph Co., 127 Fed. 361. 

43. K&htel V. Barthel, 173 Fed. 489; 
Hildreth v. Bee Candy Mfg. Co., 162 
Fed. 40; Enterprise Mfg. Co. v. Snow, 
67 Fed. 235; American Bell Tel. Co. 
V. Southern Tel. Co., 34 Fed. 803; Mc- 
Milliu V. St. Louis & M. Val. Transp. 
Co., 18 Fed. 260, 5 MeCrary 561; Pitts 
V. Whitman, 2 Story 609, IS Fed. Cas. 
No. 11,196. 

[a] Au iusuf&clent descripitlon of 
the invention is cured 1>y profert of 
the patent. Germain «. Wilgus, 67 
Fed. 597, <14 C. C. A. 561. 

44. See the title "Multifarious- 
ness." 

45. Vrooman «. Penhollow, 179 Fed. 
296, 102 C. C. A. 484; Eobinson v. 
Chicago Eys. Co., 174 Fed. 40, 98 C. 
C. A. 26; Kansas City Hay-Press Co. 
V. Devol, 81 Fed. 726, 26 C. C. A. 578 
(reversing 72 Fed. 717, rehearing de- 
nied, 84 Fed. 463, 28 C. C. A. 464); 
Eose Mfg. Co. V. E. A. Whitehouse 
Mfg., Co., 193 Fed. 69; Adrian Wire 
Fence Co. v. Jackson Fence Co., 190 
Fed. 195; Luten v. Dover Const. Co,. 
189 Fed. 405; Southern Plow Co. v. 
Atlanta Agricultural Works, 165 Fed. 
214; American Graphophone Co. v. 
I/eed^ & Catlin Co., 131 Fed. 281; 
Edison Phonograph Co. v. Victor 
Talking Maoh. Co., 120 Fed. 305; Con- 
tinental Gin Co. V. F. H. Lummus Sons' 
Co., 110 Fed. 390; Elliott & Hatch 
Book-Typewriter Co. v. Fisher Type- 
writer 'Co., 109 Fed. 330; Chisholm Al. 
Johnson, 106 Fed. 191; Russell v. Win- 
oh'tfster Eepeating Arms, 97 Fed. 634. 

[a] Wse in the same device may 
be infen'ed irom the allegation that 
the inventions covered by the patents 
sued -on were ' '«onj4tolily used. ' ' ' 



Foundation Co. iv. O'Eourke Engineer- 
ing Const. Oo., 171 Fed. 425. 

46. Horman Patent Mfg. Go. v. 
Brooklyn .City E. Co., 15 Blatchf. 444, 
12 Fed. Cas. No. 6,703. 

47. Swift V. Inland Nav. Co., 234 
Fed. 375. See Indurated Fibre Indus- 
tries Co. V. Grace, 52 Fed. 124. 

48. See generally the title "Dis- 
covery.^ ' , 

[a] Discovery of DocuQi^nts. — A 

bill for diiaeoyejry in ,ai4 of ,an action 
at \ law will be allowed wihare it is 
shown that in o.rd«r to ascertain how 
many and how totten plaintiff's pat- 
ents were used by defendants in the 
manufacture of cars, a great many 
drawings would have to be examined 
which if called for in the ac,tiQn at 
law would ent3.ii an interminable tak- 
ing of evidence on such matters. 
Pressed Steel Car Co, v. Union Pac. 
E. ;Co., 240 Fed. 135. 4^ to .^iscovery 
of documents generally, see 7 Stand- 
ard Pboc. 527. 

[bj InteiTOgatoides *wMch, if an- 
swered, will disclose toots or docu- 
ments material and pertinent to the 
support or defense of the cause, are 
proper, but the court is not warrant- 
ed in requiring answer? which would 
give no more than an opinion or dis- 
close evidence intended to be relied 
on at the trial of the case. Thus it is 
proper -to ask vi^ere the deviee is locat- 
ed upon which the plaintiff will rely 
in proof of infringement, but not to 
designate 'the particular part or parts 
of defendant's machine which corres- 
pond with certain ■speoifted claims in 
plaintifflg paten*. Batdorf v. fiattley 
Coin HandKajg M.&eh. Co., 238 Fed. 
628. 

Tol. XXI 



202 



PATENTS 



the application being granted in exceptional cases,*' or when the court 
is satisfied with the showing made.^" 

b. Demurrer or Motion To Dismiss. — The general rules relating 
to demurrers, or, in the federal equity practice, motions to dismiss, 
should be followed in suits for the infringement of patents.^^ A motion 
to dismiss is grounded on matters apparent from the face of the 
bill,^^ or of which the court takes judicial notice.^^ The bill will be 
dismissed on motion, for example, where upon its face it shows that 
the patent is invalid,^* provided the question of invalidity is free from 



49. Eibel Process Co. v. Remington- 
Martin Co., 197 Fed. 760. 

50. Eowell V. Wm. Koelil Co., 194 
Fed. 446. 

[a] When Inspection Preferred, 
Interrogatories are iny)roper which 
seek information which may easily be 
obtained by an inspection of the ap- 
paratus and its use. Window Glass 
Mach. Co. V. Brookville Glass & Tile 
Co., 229 Fed. 833. 

51. See generally the title "De- 
murrer," and infra, this section. 

[a] The purpose of a motion to diS' 
miss is to test the law arising upon tho 
facts stated in the bill, and it cannot 
be used to raise questions which may 
to some extent depend upon the con- 
struction put upon the claims of the 
complainant's patent, such as may 
have to be construed narrowly or broad- 
ly according to the prior art, perhaps 
with the assistance of expert testi- 
mony, and which cannot be fairly dis- 
posed of on the pleading and argu- 
ment. Star Ball Retainer Co. v. Klahn, 
145 Fed. 834. 

[b] Motions to dismiss are fav- 
ored or encouraged in the case of sim- 
ple design patents, where the mere 
inspection of the patent is all that 
would be necessary on final hearing. 
Mallinson v. Ryan, 242 Fed. 951. 

52. International Mausoleum Co. ■;;. 
Sievert, 213 Fed. 225, 129 C. C. A. 
569 (reversing 197 Fed. 936); Mattea- 
wan Mfg. Co. v. Emmons Bros. Co., 
185 Fed. 814, 108 C. C. A. 46; Lange 
V. McGuin, 177 Fed. 219, 101 C. C. A. 
389; Havens v. W. R. Ostrander & Co., 
190 Fed. 199; Dade v. Boorum & Pease 
Co, 121 Fed. 135; Warner Bros. Co. v. 
Warren-Peatherbone Co., 97 Fed. 604; 
Bragg Mfg. Co. v. Hartford, 56 Fed. 
292. 

[a] Laches in a suit for infringe- 
ment cannot be raised by motion un- 
less it afSrmatively appears on the 
face of the bill. Marconi Wireless Tel. 

Vol. XXI 



Co. V. New England Navigation Co., 
191 Fed. 194; Fichtel v. Barthel, 173 
Fed. 489. 

[b] Misjoinder of parties may be 
taken advantage of by a motion to 
dismiss. Swift v. Inland Nav. Co., 
234 Fed. 375. 

[c] Omission of Material Aver- 
ment. — A bill will not be dismissed in 
the absence of an averment of con- 
joint use when it is apparent that no 
injustice will result to the defendant. 
United States Mineral Wool Co. v. 
Manville Covering Co., 101 Fed. 145. 

[d] Invention is a question of fact 
and when raised by motion must be de- 
termined by an examination of the 
patent, if a part of the record, aided 
by matters of which the court may 
take judicial notice. Ferro Concrete 
Const. Co. V. Concrete Steel Co., 206 
Fed. 666, 124 C. C. A. 466. 

53. Ferro Concrete Const. Co. v. 
Concrete Steel Co., 206 Fed. 666, 124 
C. C. A. 466; Caldwell v. Powell, 71 
Fed. 970; Kaolatype Engraving Co. v. 
Hoke, 30 Fed. 444. 

54. Richards v. Chase Elevator Co., 
158 U. S. 299, 15 Sup. Ct. 831, 39 L. 
ed. 991. 

[a] Patent embodied in bill, void. 
Richards v. Chase Elevator Co., 158 
U. S. 299, 15 Sup. Ct. 831, 39 L. ed. 
991; Brown v. Piper, 91 U. S. 37, 23 
L. ed. 200; American Safety Device ' 
Co. V. Liebel-Binney Const. Co., 243 
Fed. 575, 156 C. C. A. 273; Charles 
Boldt Co. V. Nivison-Weiskopf Co., 
194 Fed. 871, 114 C. C. A. 617; Kuhn 
V. Lock-Stub Cheek Co., 165 Fed. 445 
91 C. C. A. 389 (affirming 157 Fed! 
235); Fowler v. 3ity of New York, 
121 Fed. 747, 58 C. C. A. 113, (af- 
firming 110 Fed. 749); Victor Talk- 
ing Machine Co. v. Hawthorn* & She- 
ble Mfg. Co., 168 Fed. 554; Hogan v. 
Westmoreland Specialty Co., 145 Fed. 

[1)] Thougb the pleadings do mot 



PATENTS 



203 



doubt,"' for when the question involves an examination of the prior 
art or prior patents it cannot, as a rule, be disposed of by motion.'* 
Failure to negative facts as required by the statute,'' or to allege or 
show a joint infringement when there is more than one defendant,'* 
render a bill subject to a motion to dismiss. 

c. Answer. — (I.) In General. — In accordance with the general 
rules of equity pleading in the federal courts, all defenses to a suit 
for infringement should be made in the answer, pleas in bar and 
abatement having been abolished;'^ and as the general issue is no 
longer used, each claim asserted in the bill must be answered,*" the 
general rules of pleading being followed.*^ The defendant may set 



raise the question of validity. Slaw- 
son V. Grand Street, etc. R. R. Co., 

107 U. S. 649, 2 Sup. Ct. 663, 27 L. ed. 
576. 

55. American Safety Device Co. v. 
Liebel-Binney Const. Co., 243 Fed. 
575, 156 C. C. A. 273: Hogan v. West- 
moreland Specialty Co., 154 Fed. 66, 
83 C. C. A. 178; "Wills v. Scranton 
Cold Storage & Warehouse Co., 153 
Fed. 181, -82 C. C. A. 355; American 
Fibre-Chamois Co. v. Buckskin-Fibre 
Co., 72 Fed. 508, 18 Q, C. A. 662; 
Card V. Standard Coal & Coke Co., 202 
Fed. 351; Rose Mfg. Co. v. B. A. White- 
house Mfg. Co., 193 Fed. 69; Burro'wes 
V. Carrom Archarena Co., 190 Fed. 
204; Luten v. Dover Const. Co., 
189 Fed. 405; Voigtmann v. Seely, 
176 Fed. 371; Neidich v. Edwards, 169 
Fed. 424; Peters v. Chicago Biscuit Co., 
142 Fed. 779; Neidrich v. Fosbenner, 

108 Fed. 266. 

[a] Every doubt should be resolved 
against the motion. International 
Mausoleum Co. v. Sievert, 213 Fed. 
225, 129 C. C. A. 569 (reversing 197 
Fed. 936); Towne Steering Wheel Co. 
V. Lree, 199 Fed. 777, 120 C. C. A. 463; 
Covert V. Travers Bros. Co., 70 Fed. 
788; Drainage Const.. Co. V. Engle- 
wood Sewer Co., 67 Fed. 141. 

56. New York Belting & Packing 
Co. V. New Jersey Car Spring & Rub- 
ber Co., 137 U. S. 445, 11 Sup. Ct. 193, 
34 L. ed. 741 ; Voigtman v. Seely, 176 
Fed. 371; Southern Plow Co. v. At- 
lanta Agricultural Works, 165 Fed. 
214; Fabric Coloring Co. v. Alexander 
Smith & Sons Carpet Co., 109 Fed. 328 ; 
Rowe V. Blodgett & Clapp Co., 87 Fed. 
868. 

[a] The question of patentability 
is ordinarily a mixed question of law 
and fact and should not be disposed of 
on demurrer. Teese v. Phelps, 23 Fed. 
Cas. No. 13,818. 



[b] Judicial Kotice of Prior Art. 
A motion to dismiss on the ground of 
invalidity in view of the prior art, 
where the bill states a prima facie 
case of infringement of a patent valid 
on its face, should be granted only 
when the facts upon which invalidity 
are predicated are so widely and com- 
monly known that courts will take ju- 
dicial notice of them. Wright v. Wis- 
conain Lime & Cement Co., 239 Fed. 
534, 152 C. C. A. 412. See also Bronk 
V. Charles H. Scott Co., 211 Fed. 338, 
128 C. C. A. 17; Lange v. McGuin, 
177 Fed. 219, 101 C. C. A. 389. 

57. Hutton V. Star Slide Seat Co., 
60 Fed. 747; Hanlon v. Primrose, 56 
Fed. 600; Coop v. Dr. Savage Physical 
D. Inst., 47 Fed. 899. 

58. Fischer v. O 'Shaughnessey, 6 
Fed. 92. 

59. See Rule 29. 

60. Rule 30. 

61. See generally the titles "Bills 
and Answers;" "Equity Jurisdiction 
and Procedure." 

[a] Inconsistent Defenses.^ — Under 
equity rule 30 relating to alternative 
defenses, the defendant in a suit for 
infringement of a patent may deny 
the plaintiff's title, allege title in him- 
self, and also aver the invalidity of 
the patent. Cleveland Engineering Co. 
V. Galion Dynamic Motor Truck Co., 
243 Fed. 405. 

[b] Hypothetical Denial. — An an- 
swer by the defendant that if he sold 
the patented article he did so as the 
agent of another is bad as being hypo- 
thetical, and also for not stating the 
principal's name. Morse v. Davis, 5 
Blatchf. 40, 17 Fed. Cas. No. 9,855. 

[c] Disclaimer. — Where the de- 
fendant asserts a right to make the de- 
vices complained of, a general aver- 
ment that he does not intend to use 
the patented device or to interfere 

Vol. XXI 



204 



PATENTS 



up as many defenses in his answer as he may have, including any 
counterclaim or set-off.^^ Allegations of fraud must be specific.'^ 

(II.) Answer WitJi Notice. —The special defenses available to the 
defendant in actions at law for infringement und«r the general issue 
with notice, are likewise available upon notice given in the answer 
in suits in equity for infringement.** But if such notice is not given 
in the original answer it may be given in an amended answer. "^ 

(III.) Set-off or counterclaim.68 _j The courts are at variance in the 
interpretation of the rule permi'tting a set-off Qr counterclaim,"^ some 
adopting the broad interpretation that it means all cross-claims upon 
which the defendant might sue the plaintiff in equity, even if having 
no connection whatever with plaintiff's cause of action,"^ others hold- 
ing that it applies only to such counterclaims as arise out of the 
transaction which is the subjeet matter of the suit.*^ So the defendant 
may plead in his answer as a counterclaim a cause of action for in- 
fringement of- another patent relating to the same subject matter,^" 
but not for the infringement of another unrelated patent,'^ although 
the contrary has been held, that an unrelated patent may be made 



with the rights of the plaintiff can- 
not be construed to be a disclaimer 
and justifies the presumption that 
further infringement may be ex- 
pected. Deere & Webber Co. v,. Do- 
wagiac Mfg. Co., 153 Fed. 177, S2 
C. C. A. 351; Johnson v. Fooa M^g. 
Co., 141 Fed. 73, 72 C. C. A. 105. 

62. United States Expansion Bolt 
Co. V. H. G. Kroncke Hdw. Co., ;216 
l^d. 186; Vacuum Cleaner Co. v. Amer- 
ican Rotary Valve Co., 208 Fed. 4jl,9; 
Salt's Textile Mfg. Co. v. Tin,gu« M^g. 
Co., 208 Fed. 156; Marconi Wireleiss 
Tel. Co. V. National Electric Signaling 
Co., 206 Fed. 295. See Eule 30. 

63. CofSeld Motoi* Washer Co. v. 
A. D. Howe Co., 172 Fed. 668; Am«r- 
ican Sulphite Pulp Co. -e. Howland 
Falls Pulp Co., 70 Fed. 986; <Jear v. 
Grosvenor, Holmes 215, 10 Fed. Cas- 
No. 5,291; Doughty v. West, 7 Fed. 
Cas. No. 4y029; Olark v. Scott, -9 
Blatchf. 301, 5 Fed. Cas. No. 2,833. 

[a] The words of the statute aJone 
are too general; it is not enough to 
allege that the specification of the 
patent sued on was made to eoniain 
less than the whole truth relative to 
the invention, and more than was 
necessary to produce the desired effect 
which the law( assigns to specifica- 
tions; the details of the fraud or sub- 
terfuge relied on should be set out. 
American Sulphite Pulp Co. v. How- 
land Falls Pulp Co., 79 Fed. 986. 

64. 29 U. 8. St. at L. 692; U. S. 
Rev. St., §4920 (amended Ma,rch 3, 

Vol. XXI 



1897, ch, 391, §2) J 8 U. S. Comp. St., 
1916, P466; Bates v. Coe, 98 U. S. 31, 
25 L. ed. 68. See supra, III, F, 1, c, 
(11). ' > • f 

63. Bates v. Coe, 98 U. 8. 31, 25 
L. ed. 68, 

66. See generally the title "Set- 
off, Couiiterclaim and Becoupment." 

67. Rule 30. 

68. Electric Boat Co. v. Lake Tor- 
pefio Boat Co., 215 Fed. 377; Vacuum 
Cleaner Co. v. American Rotary Valve 
Co,, 208 Fed. ^19; Marconi Wireless 
Tel. Co. V. National Electric Signal- 
ing -Co., 2fl6 Fed, 295. 

69. Cbristensen v. Westinghouse 
Traction Brake Co., 235 Fed. 898. See 
United States Expansion Bolt Co. v. 
H. Qr. Kroncke Hdw. Co., 234 Fed. 
868, 148 C. C. A. 466; Sydney v. Mug- 
ford Printing & Engraving Co., 214 
Fed. 841; Klauder-SSTeldon Dyeing 
Mach. Co. V. Giles, 21,2 Fed. 452; At- 
las Underwear Co. v.' Cooper Under- 
wear Co., 210 Fed. 347; Adamson v. 
Shaler, 20S Fed. 566; Terry Steam Tur- 
bine Co. V. B. F. Sturtevant Co., 204 
Fed. 103. 

7Q. ITnited States Expansion Bolt 
Co. «. H. G. Kroncke Hdw. Co., 216 
Fed. 1'86; Marconi Wireless Tel. Co. v. 
National Eleetrjc Signaling Co., 206 
Fed. 295. 

71. Klauder-Weldon Dyeing Maeh. 
Go. V. Giles, 218, Fed. 452; Adamson v. 
Shaler, 208 Fed. 566; Terry Steam 
Turbine Co. v. B. F. Sturtevant Co., 
204 Fed. 103. 



PATENTS 



205 



the basis of defendant's comnterelaim.''^ Unfair competition involving 
the patentsi in the controversy may also be urged as a counterclaim, 
providing it arises out of the alleged infringement/' as well as threats 
to sue the defendant's customers,'* and false statements concerning his 
business.'^ 

d. Supplemental Fleadrngs. — The general rules relating to supple- 
mental pleadings apply to pleadings in suits for infringement,'" and 
as in other cases it is within the discretion of the court to allow a 
supplemental bill where neeessary and proper." 

e. Amendments. — Th^ general rules of equity pleading apply to 
amendment of pleadings in infringement suits.'® Thus an amendment 



72. Electric Boat Co. v. Lake Tor- 
pedo Boat Co., 215 Fed. 377. 

73. United States Expansion Bolt 
Co. V. H. G. Kroneke Hdw. Co., 234 
Fed. 868, 148 C. C. A. 466; "Williams 
Patent Cnisher & P. Co. «. Kinsey 
Mfg. Co., 205 J'ed. 375. - 

74. Vacuum Cleaner Co. v. Ameri- 
can Eotary Valve Co., 208 Fed. 419. 

75. Vacuum Cleaner Go. v. Ameri- 
can Eotary Valve Co.,. 208 Fed. 419. 

76. See the title "Supplememtal 
Pleading." 

77. Brookfleld v. Novelty Glass 
Mfg. Co., 170 Fed. 960, 96 C. C. A. 
127, afflrming 170 Fed. 830. See rule 
34. 

[a] To state new eTidenc© concern- 
ing the patent, arising since the be- 
ginning of the suit. Electrical Ac- 
cumulator Co. V. Brush Electric Co., 
44 Fed. 602. 

[b] To add a claim to his cause 
of action, accruing to hiip since the 
suit was begun. Emerson v. Hubbard, 
34 Fed. 327. 

[c] If the infringing structure is 
modified a supplemental bill is not 
necessary, as relief may be had under 
the original bill. WeBfinghouse Air 
Brake Co. v. Chriatensen Engineering 
Co., 126. Fed. 764. 

[d] Infringement by another de- 
vice may be set up in a supplemental 
bill after the validity of the patent 
has been adjudged by the appellate 
court and an interlocutory decree has 
been entered for an injunction and 
accounting. Houghton v. Whitin 
Mach. Wks., 161 Fed. 581. 

78. See generally the , titles 
"Amendments and Jeofails;" "Bills 
and Answers;" "New Cause of Ac- 
tion or Defense;" and, Rule 28. 

[a] Anthoii^ to make a patented 
article, und'er an exclusive license maj 
be added By amendment, fn » suit 



for infringement by an exclusive li- 
censee, wheiie it is shown that this 
is permitted by the license. Fox v. 
Knickerbocker Engraving Co., 140 Fed. 
714. 

[bj: An amendment of defendant's 
notice claiming prior knowledge will 
be permitted to add the name of a 
par^ who had such prior knowledge, 
even after the ffPing of a replication, 
when it appears" that the application 
is not made for the purpose of delay 
and is in furtherance of justice. 
Standard Elevator Interlock Co. v. 
Eamaey, 130 Fed'. 151. See also Eoe- 
mer v. Simon, 95 U. S. 214, 24 L. ed. 
384. 

[cj To cure multifariousness, an 
averment of conjoint use by the de- 
fendant of the subject matter of the 
patents infringed in one device or 
structure should be permitted. Union 
Switch & Signal Co. v. Philadelphia 
& E. R. Co. 68 Fed. 914. 

[d] To Comply With the Statute. 
A bill should be permitted to be 
i amended to comply with the statute 
when it fails to negative the things 
which, if existing, would invalidate 
[the patent,, such as that it had not. 
been patented or described in any" 
printed puUilicatioa, etc. Eoss v. Ft. 
Wayne, 58 Fed. 404. 

[ej The omissi<in of material al- 
legations, such as that th-e patent was 
issued in the name of the United 
States, under seal of the patent of- 
frce; and that it was signed by the 
commissioner, in* connection with the 
fact that no copy of the patent is 
annexed and no profert of it made, 
leaves the bill defective, but the de- 
fect may be cured by amendment. 
Schaum v. Copley-Plaza Operating Co., 
243 Fed. 924. 

[f] An immaterial amendment will 
not be permitted. Lowell Mfgw Co. ■». 

■VTorl. XXE 



206 



PATENTS 



should be permitted to cover a reissue of the patent sued on,'* to con- 
form to the proof, ^° or to assert the defense of invalidity on facts 
discovered after tiling the original answer.*^ Where the statement 
of ultimate facts in a bill for infringement of a patent is general it 
may be ordered, on motion by defendant, to be made more specific 
as to the claim or claims of the patent in suit,*^ but not to make a 
comparison between the elements of the claims of the plaintiff's patent 
and those of the defendant's device.*^ 

3. Bills of Particulars.** — When anticipation is pleaded as a de- 
fense, the plaintiff, upon stating the approximate date of his own 
invention, is entitled to a bill of particulars stating the prior patents, 
or publications, or prior use to be relied on by the defendant.*^ Where 
the defendant pleads a number of patents as indicating the state of 
the prior art, he may be required on motion to specify which one or 
more he intends to rely on at the hearing,*^ and in what respects they 
disclose any of the elements described in plaintiff's letters patent,*^ 
and wherein they negative the novelty and invention of the plaintiff's 
device.** 

G. Issues, Proof and Vaeiancb.*^ — In actions and suits for the 
infringement of patents, as in other civil cases, the proof and plead- 
ings must correspond.^" The defendant is limited to proof of special 



Hogg, 70 Fed. 787; Tyler v. Galloway, 
13 Fed. 477, 21 Blatchf. 66; Biehard- 
son V. Croft, 11 Fed. 800. 

[g] Laches. — When the application 
is coupled with unexcused laches, an 
amendment will be denied. Walker v. 
Giles, 207 Fed. 825; Dederick v. Far- 
quhar, 39 Fed. 346; India Eubber Comb 
Co. V. Phelps, 8 Blatchf. 85, 13 Fed. 
Cas. No. 7,025., 

[h] When estopped from making 
the defense to be added by the amend- 
ment, the application will be denied. 
Euggles V. Eddy, 11 Blatchf. 524, 20 
Fed. Cas. No. 12,118; Pentlarge v. 
Beeston, 15 Blatchf. 347, 19 Fed. Cas. 
No. 10,964. 
• 79. Eeay v. Eaynor, 19 Fed. 308. 

80. Babcock & Wilcox Co. v. Pio- 
neer Iron Works, 34 Fed. 338; New 
York Grape Sugar Co. v. Buffalo Grape 
Sugar Co., 20 Fed. 505. 

[a] When an assignment of the 
patent is filed subsequent to the origi- 
nal answer, it is proper to permit the 
answer to be amended to conform to 
the new aspect of the case. Patent 
Button Co. V. Pilcher, 95 Fed. 479. 

81. Morehead v. Jones, 3 Wall Jr. 
306, 17 Fed. Cas. No. 9,791. 

82. Bonney Supply Co. v. Heltzel, 
243 Fed. 399; Marconi Wireless Tele- 
graph Co. V. New England Nav. Co., 
191 Fed. 194; Foundation Co. v. 

Vol XXI 



O'Eourke Engineering Const. Co., 171 
Fed. 425. 

83. Morton Trust Co. v. American 
Car & Foundry Co., 129 Fed. 916, 64 
0. C. A. 367; Bonney Supply Co. v. 
Heltzel, 243 Fed. 399. 

84. See generally the title "Bills 
of Particulars." 

85. A. B. Dick Co. v. Underwood 
Typewriter Co., 233 Fed. 300. 

86. Window Glass Mach. Co. v. 
Brookville Glass & Tile Co., 229 Fed. 
833; Grand Eapids Show Case Co. v. 
Straus, 229 Fed. 199; Coulston v. H. 
Franke Steel Eange Co., 221 Fed. 669. 

87. Coulston v. H. Franke Steel 
Eange Co., 221 Fed. 669. 

88. Coulston v. H. Franke Steel 
Eange Co., 221 Fed. 669. 

89. See the titles "Issues in Plead- 
ing and Practice;" and "Variance 
and Failure of Proof." 

90. New York Belting & Packing 
Co. V. New Jersey Car Spring & Eub- 
ber Co., 48 Fed. 556; Allis v. Buck- 
staff, 13 Fed. 879. 

[a] Evidence of Prior Infringement 
Case.— The duty of the court to con- 
fine itself to the evidence of the ease 
at issue does not warrant a resort to 
the testimony of expert , witnesses in 
a prior igfringement suit embodied in 
another record. Safety Car Heating & 
Lighting Co. V. Gould Coupler Co., 245 
Fed. 755. 



PATENTS 



207 



matter specified in his notice,®^ and cannot show a prior knowledge,^^ 
or use,®^ not indicated. But it is not necessary to prove an allegation 
of prior knowledge by the individual indicated as possessing that 
knowledge.^* 

H. Tkial in Actions at Law. — 1. In General. — The general 
rules of practice in civil actions apply to infringement cases."^ Thus 
objections and exceptions must be seasonably made;®" the production 
of records and exhibits may be ordered by the court ;®^ experiments 
will not be ordered conducted in the presence of plaintiff's witnesses.®' 

2. Questions of Law and Fact.'® — The construction of the lan- 
guage of a patent, in the absence of conflicting evidence thereon, is 
for the court,^ as is also the question whether the invention is within 
one of the classes of things which are patentable under the statute,^ 



[b] The patentee is limited by the 
terms of his claim in his patent and 
cannot show that his invention is 
broader. Keystone Bridge Co. v. Phoe- 
nix Iron Co., 95 U. S. 274, 24 L. ed. 
344. 

[cj A specification, if pleaded in 
detail, must be proved as alleged. 
Tryon v. White, Pet. C. C. 96, 24 Ped. 
Cas. No. 14,208. 

91. Philadelphia, W. & B. E. Co. v. 
Dubois, 12 Wall. (U. S.) 47, 20 L. ed. 
265; Dixon v. Moyer, 4 Wash. C. C. 
68, 7 Fed. Cas. No. 3,931. 

[a] Actual fraud, and theft of the 
idea (1) is not necessary in proving 
the defense that the patentee surrep- 
titiously or unjustly obtained the pat- 
ent (Yates V. Huson, 8 App. Cas. [D. 
C] 93), but (2) where the specifica- 
tion is shown to contain less than the 
whole truth, it must also be shown 
that the omission was with fraudulent 
intent. Celluloid Mfg. Co. v. Russell, 
37 Fed. 676. 

92. Philadelphia, W. & B. E. Co. v. 
Dubois, 12 Wall. (U. S.) 47, 20 L. ed. 
265. See Treadwell v. Bladen, 4 Wash. 
C. C. 703, 24 Fed. Cas. No. 14,154, 
holding that the words "and others" 
in the notice permitted proof of knowl- 
edge by others than those named. 

93. Dixon v. Moyer, 4 Wash. C. C. 
68, 7 Fed. Cas. No. 3,931. 

94. Many v. Jagger, 1 Blatehf. 372, 
16 Fed. Cas. No. 9,055; Lock v. Penn- 
sylvania E. Co., 1 N. J. L. J. 227, 
15 Fed. Cas. No. 8,438. 

95. See the title "Trial," and' cross- 
references there made. 

96. Pettibone, Muliken & Co. v. 
Pennsylvania Steel Co., 134 Fed. 889. 

fa] Objection to Special Defense. 
Where a apeeial defense is not pleaded 



as required by the statute, that is, by 
general issue with notice, an objec- 
tion to such defense must be made at 
the time it is introduced; it is too 
late after the case has been submit- 
ted. Campbell v. Skinner, 236 Fed. 
359. 

97. Diamond Match Co. v. Oshkosh 
Match Wks., 63 Fed. 984. 

98. Simonds Eolling-Mach. Co. v. 
Hathorn Mfg. Co., 83 Fed. 490. 

As to experiments, see Encyclo- 
pedia OF Evidence, title "Experi- 
ments." 

99. See generally the title "Prov- 
ince of Judge and Jury." 

1. Brothers v. Lidgerwood Mfg. Co., 
223 Fed. 359, 138 C. C. A. 460; West- 
ern Electric Co. v. Eobertson, 142 Fed. 
471, 73 C. C. A. 587; Marsh v. Quick- 
Meal Stove Co., 51 Fed. 203; National 
Car Brake Shoe Co. v. Terre Haute 
Car & Mfg. Co., 19 Fed. 514; Vance 
V. Campbell, 28 Fed. Cas. No. 16,837 
(reversed on other grounds, 1 Black [U. 
S.] 427, 17 L. ed. 168); Teese v. Phelps, 
23 Fed. Cas. No. 13,819; Serrell v. 
Collins, 21 Fed. Cas. No. 12,672; Ean- 
som V. New York, 20 Fed. Cas. No. 
11,573; Parker v. Hulme, 18 Fed. Gas. 
Na 10,740; Emerson v. Hogg, 2 
Blatehf. 1, 8 Fed. Cas. No. 4,440; Da- 
voll V. Brown, 1 Woodb. & M. 53, 7 
Fed. Cas. No. 3,662; Davis v. Palmer, 
2 Brock. 298, 7 Fed. Cas. No. 3,645; 
Canover v. Eoach, 6 Fed. Cas. No. 
3,125; Clark Patent Steam & Fire Reg- 
ulator Co. V. Copeland, 5 Fed Cas. 
No. 2,866; Cahoon v. Eing-, 1 Clife. 592, 
4 Fed. Cas. No. 2,292; Batten v. Clay- 
ton, 2 Fed. Ca.s. No. 1,105. 

2. Prepayment Car Sales Co, v. 
Orange County Traction Co., 221 Fed. 
939, 137 C. C. A. 509; American Dis- 

Vol. XXI 



208 



PATENTS 



as well as what constittites novelty,^ and utility.* 

The extent of a patented combiDation, together with its effect and 
operation, is a mixed question of law and faet for the jury under 
proper instructions by the court.^ It is for the jury, und6* cenfli^ting 
evidence, to determine the sufficiency' of the speeifieatioiia/^ dovelty," 
and identity* of the invention, fraud in procuring the patent,^ aban- 
donment,^" and infringement.^^ 

3. Instructions. — The instructions of the court should follow the 
general rules on that subject,^^ care being exercised not to trespass 
upon the province of the jury,"' by instructing,, e. .g., on the identity 
of two inventions when priority is an issue," and bj^ conforming to 
the law applicable to the case.^* 



appearing Bed Co. v. Arnaeteteen, 182 
Fedi. a24, 105 C. C. A. 40. 

3. Parker V. Stiles, 5 McLean 44, 
18 Fed. CaS. No. 30,749. 

4. Parker «. Stiles, 5 McLean 44, 
18 Fed. Cas!. No. 10,749.^ 

5. Washburn v. Gould,. 3 Story 122, 
29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,214; Foote i;. Sils- 
by, 9 Fed. Cajs. No. 4,916, apfmed, 14 
How. 218, 14 L. ed. 394. 

6. Battin v. Taggert, 17 How. (U. 
S.) 74, 15 L. ed. 37; Wood v. TJnder- 
hill, 5 How. (TJ. S.) 1, 12 L. ed. 23; 
Carver v. Brainfree Mfg. Co., 2 Story 
432, 5 Fed. Cas. No. 2,485. 

7. Battin v. Taggert, 17 How. (U. 
S.) 74, 15 L. ed. 37'; Trustees of Ma- 
soflie Hall & Asylum Fund v. Fountain 
Eleetrieal Floor Box Corp., 218 Fed. 
642, 134 C. C. A. 663 (affirming 210 Fed. 
169) ; "Transit Development Op. |y. 
Cheatham Electric Switching Device 
Co., 194 Fed. 963, 114 C. O. A. 599; 
Heide v. Panoulias, 188 Fed. 914, 110 
G. C. A. 656; Willis V. Miller, 121 Fed. 
9i85, 58 C. C. A. 286; San Francisco 
Bridge Co. v. Keating, 6'8 Fed. 351, 
15 C.^ C. A. 476; Hunt Bros. Fruit- 
Packing Co. V. Cassidy, 53 Fed. 257, 
3 C. C. A. 525; Washburn v. Gould, 
3 Story 122, 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,214; 
Eeutgen v. Kanowrs, 1 Wash C. 0. 
168, 20 Fed. Cas. No. 11,710; Carver 
v. Braintree Mfg. Co., 2 Story 432, 5 
Fed. Cas. No. 2,485. 

8. Coupe V. Royer, 155 U. S. 565, 
15 Sup. Ct. 199, 39 L. ed. 263 (reversing 
29 Fed. 358); Keyes v. Grant, 118 U. 
S. 25, 6 Sup. Ct. 974, 30 L. ed. 54; 
Tucker v. Spalding, 13 Wall. (U. S.) 
453, 20 L. ed. 515; Tyler v. Boston, 
7 Wall. (U. S.) 327, 19 L. ed. 93; 
Battin v. Taggert, 17 How. (TJ. 8.) 
74, 15 L. ed. 37; May v. Fond du Lac, 
27 Fed. 691; Tathaiii v. LeBoy, 23 Fed. 
Gas. No. 13,761; Sutitb v. IValc^, 2 

Vol. XXI 



McLean 176, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 13,089; 
Smith) V. Higgina, 32 Fed. Cas. No. 
13/)58; Poppenhusen v. Falke, 4 
,BlatBhf, 493, 19 Fed. Caa No. 11,279; 
Pemnoek v. Dialogue^ 4 Wash C. C. 
.^38, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 10,941 (affirmed, 
2 Pet. [U. S.] 1, 7 L. ed. 327); Parker 
,v. Stilea, 5 McLean 44, 18 Fed. Cas. No. 
10,749 J Carver v. Brain tree Mfg. Co., 
,2 Story 432,. 5 Fed. Cas. No. 2,485; 
Tillotson V. Eamsay, 51 Vt. 309. 

9. Carver v. BraiBtree Mfg. Co., 2 
Story 432, 5 Fed. Cas. No. 2,485. 

lOi Kendall v. Winsor, 21 How. (U. 
S.) 322, 16 L. ed. 165; Battin v. Tag- 
gert, 17 How. (U. S.) 74, 15 L. ed. 
37. 

11. Eoyer v. Schultz Belting Co.. 
135 IT. 8. 319, 10 Sup. Ct. 833, 34 l! 
ed. 214; Trustees of Masonic Hall & 
Asylum Fund v. Fountain Electrical 
Floor Box Corp., 218 Fed. 642, 134 
C. C. A. 663 {afflrmmg 21ff Fed. 169)- 
Heide v. Panoulias, 188 Fed. 914, 110 
C. A. 656; Singer Mfg. Co. v. Brill, 
54; Fed. 380, 4 C. C. A. 374; Washburn 

It ^."^l^.'. 3 Story 122, 29 Fed. Cas. 
No. 17,214; Jackson v. Allen, 120 Mass. 
64. 

12. See the title "Instructions." 

13. See generally the title "Prov- 
ince of Judge and Jury." 

[a] An expression of opinion by 
the judge on a question of fact in an 
intMngement case may be permissible 
in a clear case, although the question 
IS. tor the jury's determination. Boll- 
mans » Parry, 5 Clark 29, 3 Fed. Cas. 
JNo. 1,612. 

/T?*o ^^i^"^"^ ^- Wethered, 9 Wall. 
(T7. 8.) 812, 19 L. ed. 829. 

, },\, ^^^"^^ ^- Bellaire Stamping Co., 
141 U. 8. 539, 12 Sup. Ct. 66, 35 L. 
ed. 849, affirming 28 Fed. 360, 25 Fed 
270. 
[a] SFcivelty and Patentability. 



PATENTS 



209 



4. VercKct.^^ — The eoiirt should direct a verdict when the plaintiff 
in a case of infringement fails to make a prima facie case,^' or when 
the patent is void on its face,^° or is shown to have been anticipated 
by prior patents,^^ or when it appears to the court to be clearly invalid 
for want of invention,^" or any other fact of which the court may 
take judicial notice.^^ 

I. Heaking in Equity. — The generail rules relating to hearings 
of suits in equity obtain in suits for infringement.^^ 

Jury Trial. — The court, in its discretion, may permit a jury trial."^ 

Reference to a master will, when necessary, be made in accordance 
with the rules governing such procedure.^* 

Dismissal may be made pursuant to the general rules elsewhere 
treated.^^ "When the defendant has established substantial rightf 
during the progress of the case, a suit for infringement cannot be dis- 
missed without prejudice.^^ 



(1) When patentability is an issue, it 
■is erroneous to instruct tlie jutry tliati 
the way in which the invention has 
superseded all others is strong evi- 
d^ence of its novelty. Adams v. Bel- 
laire Stamping Co., 141 V. 8. 539, 12 
Sup. Ct. 66', 35 L. ed. 849, afflrming 
28 Fed. 360, 25 Fed. 270. But (2) it 
is proper to instruct that the issuance 
of a patent is a prima facie presump- 
tion of a patentable difference from 
other patented inventions. EanSome 
V. Hyatt, 69 Fed. 148,. 16 C. C. A. 185; 

[b] PrlorWy. — An instruction that 
if the patent described anything new 
and useful it was valid is erroneous, 
in an action on a note for a patent 
right where the" defense was that the 
patenteeF was not the original inventor. 
HTolliday v. B-heem, 18 Pa-. 465) 57 Am. 
Dee. 628. 

16 See geirerallv the title "Ver- 
dict." 

17. Royer v. Schutz B«lting Co., 28 
Fed. 8S0. 

18. Roberts v. Bennett, 136 Fed. 
193, 69 C. C. A. 533. 

19. Roberts v. Bennett, 136 Fed. 
193, 69 C. C. A- 533 

20. Market St. Cable R. Co. V. Row- 
ley, 155 V. 8. 621, 15 Sup. Ct. 224, 
39 L. ed. 284; Connors v. Ormsby, 148 
Fed. 13, 78 C. C. A. 181. 

21. Roberts v. Bennett, 136 Fed. 
193, 69 C. C. A. 583. 

[*] A useless thing, constituting 
an imposition on the public. Langdoii 
V. Be ©root, 1 Paine 203, 14 Fed'. Caisl 
No. 8i059i ' 

22. See generally the title "Heax- 



1* 



23. 18 U. S. St. at L. 316; 3 U. S. 
Comp; St., 1916, §1586; Watt v. Starke, 
101 U. S. 247, 25 L. ed. 826; Coch- 
ran© V. Deener, 94 U. S. 780, 24 L. ed. 
139; Keyes v. Pueblo Smelting & E. 
Co., 31 Fed. 560. 

As to. submission of issues to jury 
in an equity case, see the title "Issues 
in Pleading and Practice." 

24. See the title "Eeferencesi" 
[a] Where a patent has been sus- 
tained, and the case referred to a mas- 
ter to determine the amount of dam- 
ages and profits, the questions of in- 
fringement and general scope and ex- 
tent of the patent are not open for 
consideration or determination, the 
examination of the master being lim- 
ited to the extent of the infringement. 
F. Speidel Co. v. N. Barstow Co., 232 
Fed. 617. 

25. See the' title "DismisBali Dis- 
continuance and Nonsuit." 

[aj Dismissal as to one claini of 
infringement will be permitted in the 
absence of prejudice to defendant, even 
after argument of counsel. Bar-ber v. 
Reo Motor Car Sales Co., 245 Fed. 
938. 

[bj As to Part of Defendaflts. 
Where several independent causes of 
action fbr infringement against sev- 
eral defendants are joined, the bill 
may be diBmigsed as to all of the de- 
fendants save one. Taggart v. Brem- 
ner, 236 Fed. 544, 149 C. C. A. 596. 

26. G-eorgia Pine Turpentine- Co. v. 
Bilfinger, 129 Fed. 131. 

[a] After infriBgiement has been 
disproved; an application for dismissal 
without prejudice as to one defendant 
will- be denidd. Arehei' v. Arnd, 31 

Vol. XXt 



210 



PATENTS 



J. Judgment or Decree. — 1. In General. — In actions at law 
and suits in equity for infringement the judgment or decree is con- 
trolled by the general rules elsewhere treated.^' The parties are en- 
titled to an adjudication on all the claims of a patent embraced within 
the issues,^* and where two patents are involved the validity of each, 
as a general rule, must be separately determined on its own merits."* 
If any one of the special defenses alleged under the general issue with 
notice be found for the defendant judgment must be rendered for 
him.^° 

Damages are adjudged the successful plaintiff in a sum sufficient 
to compensate his actual loss,^^ but both at law and in equity the 
court may, in its discretion, increase the damages ascertained by the 
verdict to any sum not exceeding three times the amount thereof.^" 

2. Costs. — a. In Actions at Law.^^ — Whenever the plaintiff in an 
action for infringement recovers a verdict for damages he is entitled 
to costs,^* and he is not limited to those eases wherein the amount of 



Fed. 475, affirmed, 140 U. S. 668, 11 
Sup. Ct. 1015, 35 L. ed. 599. 

[b] Where no substantial rights 
have accrued, to the defendant, an in- 
fringement suit may be dismissed by 
the plaintiff without prejudi&e at any 
time before the hearing on the merits 
upon payment of substantial indemnity 
to the defendant, covering expenses 
incurred. E. G. Staude Mfg. Co. v. L.a- 
bombarde, 229 Fed. 1004. 

27. See generally the titles "De- 
crees;" " Judgments. ' ' 

[aj Several Judgment. — In an ac- 
tion for infringement against two de- 
fendants, a recovery may be had 
against one and the ether acquitted. 
Eeutgen v. Kanowrs, 1 Wash. C. C. 
168, 20 Fed. Cas. No. 11,710. 

28. National Malleable Castings Co. 
V. T. H. Symington Co., 234 Fed. 343, 
148 C. C. A. 245. 

29. Alvey-FerguBon Co. v. Peter 
Schoenhofen Brewing Co., 245 Fed. 
762. 

30. 29 U. S. St. at L. 692; U. S. 
Eev. St., §4920 (amended March 3, 
1897, ch. 391, §2); 8 U. S. Comp. St., 
1916, §9466. See Vacuum Cleaner Co. 
V. Dunn, 189 Fed. 634. 

31. Belknap v. Schild, 161 U. S. 
10, 16 Sup. Ct. 443, 40 L. ed. 599; 
Coupe V. Eoyer, 155 U. S. 565, 15 Sup. 
Ct. 199, 39 L. ed. 263 (reversing 29 
Fed. 358); Tilghman v. Proctor, 125 
U. S. 136, 8 Sup. Ct. 894, 31 L. ed. 
664; Brown v. Lanyon, 148 Fed. 838, 
77 C. C. A. 528 (certiorari denied, 204 
U. S. 672, 27 Sup. Ct. 787, 51 L. ed. 
673); Boston v. Allen, 91 Fed. 248, 
33 C. C. A. 485; Seattle v. MoNamara, 

Vol. XXI 



81 Fed. 863, 26 C. C. A. 652; Houston, 
E. & W. T. By. Co. v. Stern, 74 Fed. 
636, 20 C. C. A. 568. 

[a] Profits to be accounted for by 
the defendant, recoverable in equity. 
29 U. S. St. at L. 694; U. S. Eev. St. 
§4921 (amended- March 3, 1897, ch. 
391, §6); 8 U. S. Comp. St., 1916, 
§9467. i- > , 

32. At Law.— 16 U. S. St. at L. 
207; U. S. Eev. St. §4919; 8 U. S. 
Comp. St., 1916, §9464. 

[a] In Equity.— 29 U. S. St. at L. 
694; U. S. Eev. St. § 4921 (amended 
March 3, 1897, ch. 391, §6); 8 U. S. 
Comp. St., 1916, §9467; Birdsall v. 
Coolidge, 93 U. S. 64, 23 L. ed. 802; 
Whittemore v. Cutter, 1 Gall 478, 29 
Fed. Cas. No. 17,601; Gray v. James, 
Pet. C. C. 394, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,718. 

[b] When necessary to protect 
plaintiffs, only, will the court exercise 
its discretion. Schwar^ed v. Holen- 
shade, 2 Bond 29, 21 Fed. Cas. No. 
12,506; Oarlock v. T,appan, 5 Fed. Cas. 
No. 2,412; Brodie v. Ophir Silver Min. 
Co., 5 Sawy. 608, 4 Fed. Cas. No. 1,919; 
Bell V. MeCullough, 1 Bond 194, 3 Fed. 
Cas. No. 1,256; Allen v. Blunt, 2 
Woodb. & M. 121, 1 Fed. Cas. No. 217. 

33. See generally the title "Costs." 

34. 16 TJ. S. St. at L. 207; U. S 

?n7«.®*- ^^^^^' ^ ^- S- Comp. St., 1916, 
§9464. 

[a] On Verdict for Nominal Dam- 
ages.— Merchant V. Lewis, 1 Bond 172. 
17 Fed. Cas. No. 9,437. 

[b] Disclaimer (1) as to one or 
more claims of a patent, does not 
defeat his right to costs (Pressed 
Prism Glass Co. v. Continuous Glass 



FATENTS 



211 



the verdict is trebled by the court.'" 

The defendant is entitled to costs on a judgment rendered in his 
favor on any of the special defenses pleaded under the general issue 
with notice.'^ 

Counsel fees as a rule, are not allowable as an element of costs or 
damages in actions for infringement,^' though they have been allowed 
in some cases.'* 

b. In Suits in Equity. ^^ — In suits for infringement, while the 
general rules as to what are taxable costs apply,*" costs generally are 
awarded to the successful party ,*^ unless in the discretion of the court 
the circumstances of the case justify a different rule.*^ So costs may 
be divided in the discretion of the court,*' or denied when nominal 
damages only are recovered.** 

K. Rehearing. — The rules relating to rehearings generally, apply 
to applications for rehearings in suits for infringement.*" Thus the 
granting or refusal of an application as a rule depends upon the facts 



Prism Co., 181 Fed. 151; Peek v. Frame, 
19 Fed. Gas. No. 10,904), but (2) they 
may be reduced if by such disclaimer 
the defendant is put to any additional 
expense which otherwise would not 
have occurred. See Pressed Prism 
Glass Co. V. Continuous Glass Prism 
Co., 181 Fed. 151. 

35. Merchant v. Lewis, 1 Bond 172, 
17 Fed. Cas. No. 9,437. 

36. 29 U. S. St. at L. 692; U. S. 
Eev. St. §4920 (amended March 3, 
1897, ch. 391, |2); 8 U. S. Comp. St., 
1916, §9466. 

37. Teese v. Huntingdon, 23 How. 
(IT. S.) 2, 16 L. ed. 479; Whittemore v. 
Cutter, 1 Gall. 429, 29 Fed., Cas. No. 
17,600; Stimpson v. Railroads, 23 Fed. 
Cas. No. 13,456; Blanchard's Gun- 
Stock Turning Factory v. Warner, 1 
Blatchf. 258, 3 Fed. Cas. No. 1,521. 

38. Boston Mfg. Co. v. Fiske, 2 Ma- 
son 119, 3 Fed. Cas. No. 1,681; Allen 
V. Blunt, 2 Woodb. & M. 121, 1 Fed. 
Cas. No. 217. 

39. See generally the title "Costs." 

40. Parks v. Booth, 102 U. S. 96, 
26 L. ed. 54. 

[a] Costs Accruing on Beference. 
Kansas City Hay-Press Co. v. Devol, 
127 Fed. 363. 

[b] Copies of patents cannot be 
included. Ryan v. Gould, 32 Fed. 754. 

[c] Unnecessary costs will not be 
allowed. Brunswick-Balke-CoUender Co. 
V. Klump, 131 Fed. 93. 

41. See 5 Standard Peoc. 808. 

[a] Expiration of patent pendente 
lite will not defeat costs though it 
prevents the relief by injunetipn to 



which plaintiff was entitled at the out- 
set. American Caramel Co. v. White, 
234 Fed. 328, 148 C. C. A. 230. 

[b] Where dismissal is warranted 
through defendant's acts, he is charge- 
able with costs. Parker «. Stebler, 
241 Fed. 589, 154 C. C. A. 365. 

42. See Green v. Lynn, 81 Fed. 387; 
Consolidated Brake-She i Co. v. Chi- 
cago, P. & St. L. E. Co., 69 Fed. 412; 
Hayes v. Biokelhoupt, 23 Fed. 183; 
Prime v. Brandon Mfg. Co., 16 
Blatchf. 453, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 11,421. 

43. Dobson v. Bigelow Carpet Co., 
114 U. S. 439, 5 Sup. Ct. 945, 29 L. ed. 
177 (reversing 10 Fed. 385); Brill v. 
Delaware County & P. E. E. Co., 109 
Fed. 901; Tesla Electric Co. v. Scott, 
101 Fed. 524; Troy Iron & Nail Fac- 
tory V. Corning, 10 Blatchf. 223, 24 
Fed. Cas. No. 14,198. 

44. Kansas City Hay-Press Co. v. 
Devol, 127 Fed. 363; Hill v. Smith, 32 
Fed. 753; Kirby v. Armstrong, 5 Fed. 
801, 10 Biss. 135. 

45. See the title "Rehearing." 

[a] Newly DiscoTered Evidence. 
Bar*ber v. Otis, etc. Co., 245 Fed. 945; 
American Sulphite Pulp Co. v. Hinck- 
ley Fibre Co., 241 Fed. 590; Corrugated 
Paper Patents Co. v. Paper Working 
Mach. Co., 237 Fed. 380; Brill v. North 
Jersey St. By. Co., 125 Fed. 526; Sacks 
V. Brooks, 85 Fed. 970. 

[b] Unreasonable delay will defeat 
the right. Turner v. Lauter Piano Co., 
239 Fed. 560. 

[c] Payment of costs as prerequi- 
site, see Underwood v. Gerber, 37 Fed. 
796, 2 L. R. A. 357. 

Vpl. XXJ 



212 



PATENTS 



of each ease,*^ and may be permitted by the appellate court after its 
mandate has been- issued to the lower court.*' 

L. Operation akd Effect op Judgment oe Decree. — Satisfaction 
of a judgment of infringement does' not authorize the continued use 
of the infringing device.*^ 

The doctrinei of res judicata is fully applicable to cases of patent in- 
fringement.*' But while a decision on the same facts but between 
different parties by the appellate court of another circuit on the 
question of validity of a patent is not res judicata,^* in cases of doubt 
it is substantially so and will be foUowed.^^ 

M. Appeal. — 1. In General. — An appeal in accordance with 
the general rules^^ lies to review infringement proceedings at law.^^ 



46. Pittsburgh Eeduction Co. v. 
Cowles Electric Smelting & Aluminum 
Co., 121 Fed. 556. 

47. Sundh Electric Co. v. Cutler- 
Hammer Mfg. Co., 244 Fed. 163, 156 
C. C. A. 591. 

[a] Newly discovered evidence can- 
not be introduced on the argument be- 
fore the appellate court. Barber v. 
Otis Motor Sales Co., 240 Fed. 723, 
153 C. C. A. 521. 

48. Van Epps v. International Pa- 
per Co., 124 Fed. 542; Hay den v. Suf- 
folk Mfg. Co., 11 Fed. Gas. No. 6,261, 
affirmed, 3 Wall. (U. S.) 315, 18 L. ed. 
76. 

49. Hart Steel Co. v. Eailroad Sup- 
ply Co., 244 U. S. 294, 37 Sup. Ct. 
506, 61 L. ed. 1148: Van Epps v. In- 
ternational Paper Co., 124 Fed. 542; 
Newton Mfg. Co. v. Wilgus, 90 Fed. 
483; Dubois v. Philadelphia, W. & B. 
E. Co., 7 Fed. Cas. No. 4,109. See 
generally the titles "Judgments;" 
"Bes Judicata." 

[a] One who accepts a judgment 
for profits cannot maintain another 
action for damages arising out of the 
same acts of infringement. Child v. 
Boston & F. Iron Works, 19 Fed. 258. 

[b] Record parties nominally dif- 
ferent but the real parties in interest 
the same. Hart Steel Co. v. Eailroad 
Supply Co., 244 TJ. S. 294, 37 Sup. Ct. 
506, 61 L. ed. 1148, reversing 222 Fed. 
261, 138 C. C. A. 23. 

50. Mast, Foos & Co. v. Stover Mfg. 
Co., 177 U. S. 485, 20 Sup. Ct. 708, 
44 L. ed. 856; Irving-Pitt Mfg. Co. v. 
Blackwell-Wielandy Book & Station- 
ery Co., 238 Fed. 177, 151 C. 0. A. 253; 
Baldwin v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co., 
228 Fed. 895, 143 C. C. A. 293; Na- 
tional Electric Signaling Co. v. Tele- 
funken W. T. Co., 221 Fed. 629, 137 
C. C. A. 353; Doelger v. German- Ameri- 

Vol. XXI 



can Filter Co., 204 Fed. 274, 122 C. 
C. A. 472; Hildreth v. Auerbaeh, 223 
Fed. 545, affirmed, 223 Fed. 651, 139 
C. C. A. 205. 

[a] Stare Decisis. — Prior deeiaiona 
on the validity of a patent, by ap- 
pellate courts in other circuits and 
different cases, will be followed, unless 
in the instant ease the facts are dif- 
ferent, when the court will exercise 
its independent judgment. Thaeher v. 
Inhabitants of Falmouth, 241 Fed. 
869, 154 C. C. A. 571. 

51. Doelger v. German-American 
Filter Co., 204 Fed. 274, 122 C. C. A. 
472; Voigtmann v. Seely, 198 Fed. 485, 
119 C. C. A. 386; Hildreth v. Auerbaeh, 
223 Fed. 545, affirmed 223 Fed. 651, 
139 C. C. A. 205. 

52. See g'enerally the title "Ap- 
peals." 

53. Philp V. Nock, 13 Wall. (U. S.) 
185, 20 L. ed. 567; Blanchard v. Put- 
nam, 8 Wall. (U. S.) 420, 19 L. ed. 

[a] Biscretionary Rulings.— The al- 
lowance of increased damages lies in 
the discretion of the trial court, and in 
the absence of abuse will not be dis- 
turbed on appeal. Toplife v. ToplifE 
145 U. S. 156, 12 Sup. Ct. 825, 36 L 
ed. 658. , " ^. 

[bj Verdict > Sustained on Other 
Grounds. — Thus where want of patent- 
ability is pleaded as a defense, a di- 
rected verdict for the defendant may 
be sustained on that ground although 
based on other grounds. May v Ju- 
neau, 137 IT. S. 408, 11 Sup. Ct." 102 
34 L. ed. 729, affirming 3a Fed. 241. ' 

[c] Review of Questions of Fact. 
(1) The appellate court will not re- 
view the finding of the jury on the 
question of infringement submitted 
upon competent evidence. Graham v 
Earl, 92 I*ed. 155, 34 C. C. A 267- 



PATENTS 



213 



The same is true of such proceedings in equity.^* 

2. Sulbsequent Proceedings in Lower Court."' — While the lower 
court cannot modify an interlocutory decree granting a perpetual in- 
junction against infringement which has been affirmed by the ap- 
pellate court,^" it may, before the case goes to final decree, consider 
and determine whether a modified device not previously submitted 
does or does not infringe.^' 

N. Injunctions. — 1. In General. — Federal courts vested with 
jurisdiction in infringement suits have power to grant injunctions to 
prevent the violation of any right secured by a patent,^' and the same 
general rules control as are applied to the issuance of injunctions in 
other eases.^® The infringement may be real or anticipated,'"' and an 
injunction may issue even though the defendant disclaims any in- 
tention of further infringement, °^ although there are decisions re- 



Singer Mfg. Co. V. Brill, 54 Fed. 380, 
4 C. C. A. 374. (2) The same ap- 
plies to novelty. Graham v. Earl, 92 
Fed. 155, 34 C. C. A. 267. 

[d] Objections and Exceptions Be- 
low. — An objection to the validity of 
a patent must be raised below. It 
■will not be considered if raised for the 
first time on appeal. Heide v. Panou- 
lias, 188 Fed. 914, 110 C. C. A. 656. 

[e] Same Theory. — So where de- 
fendant treated as a question of fact 
at the trial the question as to what 
constituted a combination as patented, 
he cannot assert on appeal that it 
should have been determined as a ques- 
tion of law. Foote v. Silsby, 1 Blatehf. 
445, 9 Fed. Cas. No. 4,916, affirmed, 
14 How. 218, 14 L. ed. 394. 

54. Lederer v. Garage Equipment 
Mfg. Co., 235 Fed. 527, 149 C. C. A. 73. 

[a] Interlocutory decree of injvmc- 
tjnu, (1) appealable. Lederer v. Gar- 
age Equipment Mfg. Co., 235 Fed. 527, 
1''9 C. C. A. 73; Racine Engine & 
Mach. Co. V. Confectioners' Maoh. & 
Mfg. Co., 235 Fed. 527, 149 C. C. A. 73. 
474. (2) Appeal must be taken within 
thirty days where decree interlocutory 
(Stromberg Motor Devices Co. v. Arn- 
son, 239 Fed. 891, 153 C. C. A. 19), 
but (3) not where it is partly final 
ard partly interlocutory. Historical 
Publishing Co. v. Jones Bros. Pub. Co., 
231 Fed. 784, 145 C. C. A. 655 (a 
copyright infringement ease) ; Scriven 
V. North, 134 Fed. 366, 67 C. C. A. 
348. 

[b] Dismissal of appeal where new 
and material evidence discovered, •see 
Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Seiber- 
ling, 245 Fed. 937, 158 C. C. A. 225. 

65. See generally the title "Man- 



date and Proceedings Thereafter." 

56. Bissell Carpet-Sweeper Uo. v. 
Goshen Sweeper Co., 72 Fed. 545, 19 
C. C. A. 25. 

57. Kalamazoo Loose-Leaf Binder 
Co. V. Proudfit Loose-Leaf Co., 243 
Fed. 895, 156 C. C. A. 407. 

58. 29 U. S. St. at L. 694; U. S. 
Rev. St., §4921 (amended March 3, 
1897, ch. 391, §6); 8 U. S. Comp. St., 
1916, §9467; Parks v. Booth, 102 U. S. 
96, 26 L. ed. 54; American Grapho- 
phon« Co. V. Pickard, 201 Fed. 546; 
Brooks V. Stolley, 3 McLean 523, 4 
Fed. Cas. No. 1,962. 

59. See generally the title "Injunc- 
tions," and Gillette Safety Razor Co. 
V. Durham Duplex Safety Razor Co., 
197 Fed. 574; Westinghouse Air Brake 
Co. V. Carpenter, 32 Fed. 484; Keyes 
V. Pueblo Smelting & R. Co., 31 Fed. 
560; Brick v. Staten Island R. Co., 25 
Fed. 553; Merriam v. Smith, 11 Fed. 
588; Sargent v. Lamed, 2 Curt. 340, 
21 Fed. Cas. No. 12,364. 

60. Goshen Mfg. Co. 4). Myers Mfg. 
Co., 242 U. S. 202, 37 Sup. Ct. 105, 61 
L. ed. 248; Westinghouse Mach. Co. v. 
Press Pub. Co., 127 Fed. 822; Na- 
tional Meter Co. v. Thomson Meter Co., 
106 Fed. 531. 

61. Johnson v. Foos Mfg. Co., 141 
Fed. 73, 72 C. C. A. 105; Braddock 
Glass Co. V. Macbeth, 64 Fed. 118, 
12 C. C. A. 70; Van Kannel Revolv- 
ing Door Co. V. XJhrich, 247 Fed. 344; 
General Electric Co. v. Bullock Electric 
Mfg. Co., 138 Fed. 412; Brookfield v. 
Elmer Glassworks, 132 Fed. 312; Con- 
solidated Fastener Co. v. Toppen, 113 
Fed. 697; New York Filter Mfg. Co. 
V. Chemical Bldg. Co., 93 Fed. 827; 
New York Belting & Packing Co. v. 

Vol. XXI 



214 



PAT&^fTS 



fusing an injunction under such circumstances.*^ The fact that the 
patentee has never used the invention is not material.*^ 

2. Preliminary Injunction. — a. In General. — The general rules 
of practice govern the application for a preliminary injunction and 
proceedings 'thereon.** Where the right to and necessity for a pre- 
liminary injunction is clearly shown,*' it will be granted to prevent 



Gutta Percha & Eubber Mfg. Co., 56 
Fed. 264; Sawyer Spindle Co. v. Tur- 
ner, 55 Fed. 979; Celluloid Mfg. Co. v. 
Arlington Mfg. Co., 34 Fed. 324; Sick- 
els V. Mitchell, 3 Blatchf. 548, 22 Fed. 
Ca^ No. 12,835; Eumford Chemical 
Works V. Vice, 14 Blatchf. 179, 20 
Fed. Cas. No. 12,136; Potter v. Crow- 
ell, 1 Abb. 89, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 11,323; 
Jenkins v. Greenwald, 1 Bond 126, 13 
Fed. Cas. No. 7,270; Goodyear v. Berry, 
2 Bond 189, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,556. 

62. General Electric Co. v. Pitts- 
burg-BufEalo Co., 144 Fed. 439; Silver 
& Co. V. J. P. Eustis Mfg. Co., 130 
Fed. 348; General Electric Co. ■;;. New 
England Electric Mfg. Co., 123 Fed. 
310; Edison General Electric Co. v. 
New England Electric Mfg. Co., 121 
Fed. 125; National Cash Eegister Co. 
V. Boston Cash Indicator & Eec. Co., 
41 Fed. 144; Brammer v. Jones, 2 
Bond 100, 4 Fed. Cas. No. 1,806. 

63. Crown Cork & Seal Co. v. Alu- 
minum Stopper Co., 108 Fed. 845, 48 
C. C. A. 72; Campbell Printing Press 
& Mfg. Co. V. Manhattan E. Co., 49 
Fed. 930; American Bell Tel. Co. v. 
Cushman Tel. & S. Co., 36 Fed. 488, 
1 L. E. A. 799. 

64. As to preliminary injunctions 
generally, see 13 Standabd Proc. 128, 
146 et seq. 

[a]^ Affidavits (1) supporting the 
motion for a preliminary injunction, 
must be filed by the plaintiff. Palmer 
Pneumatic Tire Co. v. Newton Eubber 
Wks., 73 Fed. 218; Young v. Lipp- 
man, 9 Blatchf. 277, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 
18,160; American Diamond, Eock-Bar- 
ing Co. V. Sullivan Mach. Co., 14 
Blatchf. 119, 1 Fed. Cas. No. 298. (2) 
The defendant may file counter af- 
fidavits. Brill V. Peckham Motor 
Truck & Wheel Co., 189 U. S. 57, 23 
Sup. Ct. 562, 47 L. ed. 706; Young v. 
Lippman, 9 Blatchf. 277, 30 Fed, Cas. 
No. 18,160; Eobinson v. Eandolph, 2 
N. J. L. J. 170, 20 Fed. Cas. No. 11,962. 
(3) But in a close case a preliminary 
injunction will not be granted on af- 
fidavits alone. Safety Car Heating & 

Vol XZI 



Lighting Co. v. Gould Coupler Co., 
230 Fed. 848. 

I [b] Consideration of pertinent facts 
alone (1) is proper on the hearing of 
the motion. Westinghouse Electric & 
Mfg. Co. V. Stanley Electric Mfg. Co., 

' 117 Fed. 309; Union Paper Bag Mach. 
Co. V. Binney, 24 Fed. Cas. No. 14,387. 
(2) The court will not pass upon the 
credibility of witnesses (Sessions v. 
Gould, 48 Fed. 855 [afflrmed, 63 Fed. 
1001, 11 C. C. A. 546] ; Cooper v. Mat- 
theys, 3 Clark 178, 6 Fed. Cas. No. 
3,200), (3) nor determine disputed 
questions of law and fact. Motion Pic- 
ture Patents Co. V. New York Motion 

! Picture Co., 174 Fed. 51; National 
Phonograph Co. v. Walker, 169 Fed. 
146; Seal v. Beach, 113 Fed. 831; Con- 
solidated Fastener Co. v. Columbian 
Fastener Co., 73 Fed. 828; Sickels v. 
Youngs, 3 Blatchf. 293, 22 Fed. Cas. 
No. 12,838; Bailey Wringing Mach. Co. 
V. Adams, 2 Fed. Cas. No. 752. 

[e] An indemnity bond (1) is re- 
quired of the plaintiff in all eases as a 
condition to the issuance of a pre- 
liminary injunction. Act of Oct. 15, 
1914, ch. 323, §18; 38 U. S. St. at L. 
730. (2) Formerly it was a matter 
entirely within the court's discretion 
(Columbia Wire Co. v. Freeman Wire 
Co., 71 Fed. 302; Accumulator Co. v. 
Consolidated Blec. Storage Co., 53 
Fed. 796, 800; Tobey Furniture Co. v. 

' Colby, 35 Fed. 592), and (3) was gen- 
erally required in cases where serious 
injury would result to the defendant 
by the issuance of a preliminary in- 
junction. Orr V. Littlefield, 1 Woodb. 
& M. 13, 18 Fed. Cas. No. 10,590; 
Consolidated Fruit Jar Co. v. Whitney, 

! 1 Bann. & A. 356, 361, 6 Fed. Cas. 

; No. 3,132. 

I 65. International Tooth-Crown Co. 
V. Mills, 22 Fed. 659; Sickels v. Youngs, 
3 Blatchf. 293, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 12,- 
838; Parker v. Sears, 4 Clark 443, 18 
Fed. Cas. No. 10,748; Cooper v. Mat- 
theys, 3 Clark 178, 6 Fed. Cas. No. 
3,200. 

I [a] Acquiescence In defendant's 
use of the device will defeat the in- 



PATENTS 



215 



irreparable injury.*" But the right to grant a preliminary injunction 
is discretionary with the court,®^ and in cases of doubt the application 
will be refused,*,^ especially when it is shown that the defendant is 
financially able to reimburse the plaintiff;*^ or when the plaintiff has 
been guilty of laches without sufficient explanation;"* or the patent 
has expired,'^ or expires pending the motion,'^ or ia about to expire/* 
or in a case of an alleged interference,^* or when it appears that a 



junction. Aeolian Co. v. Cunningham 
Piano Co., 244 Fed. 478. 

[bj Not Before Issuance of Patent. 
Gayler v. Wilder, 10 How. (U. S.) 
477, 13 L. ed. 504; Standard Scale, 
etc. Co. V. McDonald, 127 Fed. 709; 
Hoeltge V. Hoeller, 2 Bond 386, 12 
Fed. Cas. No. 6,574. 

66. Todd Protectograph Co. v. New 
Era Mfg. Co., 236 Fed. 768; Bowers 
Dredging Co. v. New York Dredging 
Co., 77 Fed. 980; Columbia Wire Co. 
V. Freeman Wire Co., 71 Fed. 302; Nor- 
ton V. Eagle Automatic Can Co., 57 
Fed. 929; New York Grape Sugar Co. 
V. American Grape Sugar Co., 10 Fed. 
835, 20 Blatchf. 386; Parker v. Sears, 
4 Clark 443, 18 Fed. Cas. No. 10,748; 
North V. Kershaw, 4 Blatchf. 70, 18 
Fed. Cas. No. 10,311; Morris v. Low- 
ell Mfg. Co., 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 67, 17 
Fed. Cas. No. 9,833; Dorsey Revolving 
Harvester Eake Co. v. Bradley Mfg. 
Co., 12 Blatchf. 202, 7 Fed. Cas. No. 
4,015; Batten v. Silliman, 2 Fed. Cas. 
No. 1,106. 

67. Winchester Repeating Arms Co. 
V. Olmsted, 203 Fed. 493, 121 C. C. A. 
615; Hartford v. Western Mfg. Co., 
172 Fed. 676; Cimiotti Unhairing Co. 
V. American Fur Refining Co., 117 Fed. 
623; Union Paper-Bag Maoh. Co. v. 
Binney, 24 Fed. Cas. No. 14,387; Pot- 
ter V. Whitney, 1 Low. 87, 19 Fed. Cas. 
No. 11,341; Irwin v. Dane, 2 Biss. 
442, 13 Fed. Cas. No. 7,081; Earth 
Closet Co. V. Fenner, 8 Fed. Cas. No. 
4,249; American Nicholson Pavement 
Co. V. Elizabeth, 1 Fed. Cas. No. 312. 

68. Armat Moving Picture Co. v. 
Edison Mfg. Co., 125 Fed. 939, 60 C. 
C. A. 380; Steams-Roger Mfg. Co. v. 
Brown, 114 Fed. 939, 52 C. 0. A. 559; 
American Pneumatic Tool Co. v. Bige- 
low Co., 77 Fed. 988, 23 C. C. A. 603; 
Motion Picture Patents Co. v. New 
York Motion Picture Co., 174 Fed. 51: 
Brookfleld v. Elmer Glass Works, 132 
Fed. 312; Thomson-HouBtou Electric 
Co. V. Wagner Electric Mfg. Co., 130 
Fed. 902; Welsbach Light Co. v. Cos- 
mopolitan Incandescent Gaslight Co., 



100 Fed. 648; National Folding Box & 
Paper Co. v. Munson & Co., 99 Fed. 86; 
Consolidated Fastener Co. v. American 
Fastener Co., 94 Fed. 523; Brush Elec- 
tric Co. V. Electric Storage Battery 
Co., 64 Fed. 775; Hammond Buckle 
Co. V. Goodyear Rubber Co., 49 Fed. 
274; Thompson v. Rand- Avery Supply 
Co., 38 Fed. 112; Steam-Gauge, etc., 
Co. V. St. Louis R. Supplies Mfg. Co., 
25 Fed. 491; Pullman v. Baltimore & 
O. E. Co., 5 Fed. 72, 4 Hughes 236. 

69. Thompson-Hou'ston Elec. Co. v. 
Wagner Electric Mfg. Co., 130 Fed. 
902; Diamond Match Co. v. Union 
Match Co., 129 Fed. 602; Hallock v. 
Babcock Mfg. Co., 124 Fed. 226; Brad- 
ley V. Eccles, 120 Fed. 947; Seoville 
Mfg. Co. V. Patent Button Co., 99 
Fed. 743; Huntington Dry-Pulverizer 
Co. V. Alpha Portland Cement Co., 91 
Fed. 534. 

70. Brush Electric Co. v. Electric 
Storage Battery Co., 64 Fed. 775; Price 
V. Joliet Steel Co., 46 Fed. 107; Waite 
V. Chichester Chair Co., 45 Fed. 258; 
Keyes v. Pueblo Smelting & R. Co., 
31 Fed. 560. 

[a] Mere forbearance for a reason- 
able time, after notice, will not in a 
plain case affect the plaintiff's case. 
Loring v. Booth, 52 Fed. 150; CoUig- 
non V. Hayes, 8 Fed. 912. 

71. Tompkins v. St. Regis Paper 
Co., 236 Fed. 221, 149 C. C. A. 411. 

72. Huntington Dry-Pulverizer Co., 
V. Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co., 121 
Fed. 136. 

73. Keyes v. Eureka Consol. Min. 
Co., 158 U. S. 150, 15 Sup. Ct. 772, 39 
L. ed. 929; Parker v: Sears, 4 Clark 
443, 18 Fed. Gas. No. 10,748. 

[a] Not an absolute ground for re- 
fusal, for when the circumstances jus- 
tify it a preliminary injunction may 
be granted even though the patent is 
about to expire. Westinghouse Air- 
Brake Co. v. Carpenter, 32 Fed. 484. 

74. Blakey v. National Mfg. Co., 95 
Fed. 136, 37 C. C. A. 27; Welsbach 
Light Co. V. Cosmopolitan Incandes- 
cent Co., 100 Fed. 648; Ney Mfg. Co. 

Vol. XXI 



216 



PATENTS 



refusal would injure plaintiff much less than the defendant/^ or the 
public.'* But a preliminary injunction will not be refused merely 
because it would work a hardship on the defendant/' fir be an in- 
convenience to the public.'^ 

b. Validity of Patent Must Be EstaMisked. ■■ — The mere fact of the 
issuance of letters patent does not entitle the patentee to a pre- 
liminary injunction, its validity must first be 'establishfid ;'^ as, for 
example, by an adjudication of a federal eourt,^" by a decision of 



V. Superior Drill Co., 56 Fed. 152; 
WiUiams v. MeN-eely, 56 Fed. 265; 
Sargejit Mfg. Co. v. Woodruff, 5 Biss. 
444, 21 Fed. Cas. No. 12,368; Sargent 
V. Carter, 21 Fed. Cas. No. 12,362. 

[a] As between two improvers 
where no prior invention is involved, 
each basing his claiih upon a result 
obtained by a different combination, a 
preliminary injunction will not issue. 
Shepard v. Carrigan, 116 V. S. 593, 
6 Bup. Ct. 493, 29 D. ed. 723. See also 
Aeolian Go. v. Cunningham Piano Co., 
244 Fed. 478. 

75. Bowers Dredging Co. v. New 
T.oik Dredging Co., 77 Fed. 980; Boot 
V. Mt. Adams & E. Park Inclined E. 
Co., 40 Fed. 760; Potter v. Whitney, 
1 Lowell 87, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 11,341; 
Morris v. Lowell Mfg. Co., 3 Fish. Pat. 
Cas. 67, 17 Fed. Cais. No. 9,833; Hock- 
holzer v. Eager, 2 Sawy. 361, 12 Fed. 
Cas. No. 6,o56; Day v. Candee, 7 Fed. 
Qaa. No. 3,076. 

76. American Ordnance Co. v. 
Drigigs-foeabury Co., 87 Fed. 947; Camp- 
bell Printing Press & Mfg. Co. v. Man- 
hattan E. Co., 47 Fed. 663; Southwest- 
ern Brush Electric Light, etc. Co. v. 
La. Electric Light Co., 45 Fed. 893; 
G.uidet V. Palmer, 10 Blatchf. 217, 11 
Fed. Cas. No. 5,859. 

77. Thomson-Houston Electric Co. 
V. Jeffrey Mfg. Co., 144 Fed. 130; 
United Indurated Fibre Co. v. Whip- 
pany Mfg. Co., 83 Fed. 485; Norton v. 
Eagle Automatic Can Co., 57 Fed. 929; 
Hodge V. Hudson River E. Co., 6 
Blatchf. 165, 12 Fed. Cas. No. 6,560. 

78. Lanyon Zinc. Co. v. Brown, 115 
Fed. 150, 53 C. C. A. 354; Pelzer v. 
Binghamton, 95 Fed. 823, 37 C. C. A. 
288; Westinghouse Air Brake Co. v. 
Great Northern E. Co., 86 Fed. 132; 
New York Filter Mfg. Co. v. Niagara. 
Falls Water Works Co., 80 Fed. 924, 
26 C. C. A. 252; Thomson-Houston 
Electric Co. v. Union E. Co., 78 Fed. 
365. 

79. Standard Elev. Co. v. Crgjje 
Blev. Co., 59 Fed. 718, 6 C. C. A- 100; 

Vol. XXI 



Aeolian Co. v. Cuunin,gham Piano Co., 
244 Fed. 478; Brunswick-Balke-Collen- 
der Go. v. Kofihler, 115 Fed. 648; Plan- 
ters' Compress Co. v. Moore & Son's 
Co., 106 Fed. 500; Smith v. Merideu 
Britannia €o., 92 Fed. 1003; Societe 
Anonyme v. Allen, 84 Fed. 812; Pal- 
mer Pneumatic Tire Co. v. Newton Eub- 
ber Works, 73 Fed. 218; Dickerson v. 
De La Vergne Eefrigeraiting Mach. 
Co., 35 Fed. 143; Foster v. Crossin, 
23 F«d. 400. 

[a] In a clear case, where the pat- 
ent's validity is unaasailed, or there 
is no evidence to support a charge of 
invalidity, and its novelty and useful- 
ness are apparent, and the evidence 
as to the prior art is inconclusive, 
the presumption of validity attaching 
to a patent by reason of its grant is 
Bufi5.cient to 'support the issuance of a 
preliminary injunction, without a 
prior adjudication, long acquiescence 
by the public, or other fact establish- 
ing its validity. Fuller v. Gilmore, 
121 Fed. 129; Wilson v. Consolidated 
Store-Service Co., 88 Fed. 286, 31 C. 
C. A. 53,3 (reversing 83 Fed. 201).; 
Hussey Mfg. Co. v. Deering, 20 Fed. 
795, 

80. Leeds & Catlin Co. v. Victor 
Talking Machine Co., 213 U. S 301, 
29 Sup. Ct. 495, 53 L. ed. 805; Adam 
V. Folger, 120 Fed. 260, 56 C. G. A. 
540; Aeolian Co. v. Cunningham Piano 
Co., 244 Fed. 478; Societe Anonyme v. 
Allen, 84 Fed. 612, 823; Thomson- 
Houston Electric Co. v. Ohio Brass Co., 
78 Fed. 142; Edison Electric Light Co. 
V. Beacon Vacuum & Electrical Co., 
54 Fed. 678. See infm. III, P, 2, c. 

[a] But not (1) a consent decree 
(Wilson V. Consolidated Store-Service 
Co., 88 Fed. 286, 31 C. C. A. 533 [re- 
versing 83 Fed. 201]; American Grapho- 
phone Co. v. Gimbel Bros., 234 Fed. 
344; New York Button Works v. Cres- 
cent Button Co., 185 F«d. 820- Earll 
V. Eochester, S. & E. E. Co., 157 Fed. 
241; National Enameling Co. v. New 
England Enameling Co, 123 Fed. 436; 



PATENTS 



217 



the patent office or appellate court in an interference proceeding,'* 
unless the parties are different,^^ or by long continued acquiescence 
by the public.*' However, the presumption of validity which attaches 
to every patent valid on its face, is sufficient when the defendant does 
not deny such validity,** or is estopped from doing so.*^ 

c. Prior Adjudication of Validity. — An adjudication of the validity 
of a patent by the federal supreme court or appellate' court of the 



Bowers Dredging Co. v. New York 
Dredging Co., 77 Fed'. 980), or (2) 
decree entered without a hearing upon 
an abandonment of the defense. Dia- 
mond Match Co. V. Union Match Co., 
129 Fed. 602; "Western Electric Co. v. 
Anthracite Tel. Co., 113 Fed. 834; 
American Electrical Novelty Co. v. 
Newgold, 99 Fed. 567; Societe Anony- 
me V. Allen, 84 Fed. 812 (aprmed, 90 
Fed. 815, .33 C. C. A. 282); Hayes v. 
Leton, 5 Fed. 521. 

81. Automatic Weighing Mach. Co. 
V. Pneumatic Scale Corp., 166 Fed. 
288, 92 C. C. A. 206 (reversing 158 
Fed. 415) ; Perfection Cooler Co. v. Eose 
Mfg. Co., 175 Fed. 120; Dickerson v. 
De La Vergne Refrigerating Mach. Co., 
35 Fed. 143; Minneapolis Harvester 
Wks. V. McCormick Harvestering Mach. 
Co., 28 Fed. 565; Cojisolidated Bunging 
Apparatus Co. v. Peter Schoenhofen 
Brew. Co., 28 Fed. 428: Celluloid Mfg. 
Co. V. Chrolithian Collar & Cuff Co., 
24 Fed. 275; Smith v. Halkyard, 16 
Fed. 414; Pentlarge v. Beeston, 14 
Blatch. 352, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 10,963. 

[a] Priority Determined. — The de- 
termination of the patent office in an 
interference proceeding establishes the 
validity of the patent as between the 
parties only so far as it concerns the 
question of priority. Elliott & Co. v. 
Youngstown Car Mfg. Co., 181 Fed. 
345, 104 C. C. A. 175, reversinff 173 Fed. 
315. 

82. Eeed Mfg. Co. ». Smith & Win- 
chester Co., 107 Fed. 719, 46 G. C. A. 
601; Wilson v. Consolidated Store- 
Service Co., 88 Fed. 286, 31 0. C. A. 
533 (reversing 83 Fed. 201); Empire 
State Nail Co. v. American Solid 
Leather Button Co., 61 Fed. 650; Dick- 
erson V. De La Vergne Refrigerating 
Mach. Co., 35 Fed. 143; Potter v. Stev- 
ens, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 11,338. 

83. Crescent Specialty Co. v. Na- 
tional Fireworks Distributing Co., 219 
Fed. 130, 135 C. C. A. 28; Silver & Co. 
V. 3. P. Eustis Mfg. Co., 130 Fed. 348; 
Corser v. Brattleboro Overall Co., 59 



Fed. 781; Palmer v. Mills, 57 Fed. 221; 
Sessions v. Gould, 49 Fed. 855; White 
V. Hunter, 47 Fed. 819; White v. Sur- 
dam, 41 Fed. 790. 

[a] There is no fixed rule as to the 
length of tinie the possession and en- 
joyment of the right under the patent 
shall have continued to justify a pre- 
liminary injunction. Sargent v. Sea- 
grave, 2 Curt. 553, 21 Fed. Cas. No. 
12,365; Potter v. Muller, 19 Fed. Cas. 
No. 11,334; Orr v. Littlefield, 1 Woodb. 
& M. 13, 18 Fed. Cas. No. 10,590. 

[b] What constitutes acquiescence 
depends upon the facts of each case. 
Consolidated Fastener Co. v. American 
Fastener Co., 94 Fed. 523; Nilsaon v. 
Jefferson, 78 Fed. 366; Sargent v. Sea- 
grave, 2 Curt. 553, 21 Fed. Cas. No. 
12,365; Potter v. Muller, 19 Fed. Cas. 
No. 11,334; Mitchell V. Barclay, 17 
Fed. Cas. No. 9,659. 

[c] The fact that the patent has 
been unquestioned for several years is 
sufScient to raise the presumption of 
validity, though there has been no ad- 
judication thereon. McDowell v. Kurtz, 
77 Fed. 206, 23 C. C. A. 119; Peck, 
Stow & Wilcox Co. V. Fray, 88 Fed. 
784; White v. Hunter, 47 Fed. 819; 
National Typographic Co. v. New York 
Typograph Co., 46 Fed. 114. 

[dl A patent only a year old or 
less is too recent to have received suf- 
ficient acquiescence to warrant a pre- 
liminary injunction. Nilsson v. Jeffer- 
son, 78 Fed. 366; National Cash Regis- 
t«^r Co. V. Boston Cash Indicator & 
Eec. Co., 41 Fed. 144; Johnston Euffler 
Co. V. Avery Mach. Co., 28 Fed. 193. 

84. New York Grape Sugar Co. v. 
American Grape Sugar Co., 10 Fed. 
835, 20 Blatehf. 386; Siekels v. Mitch- 
ell, 3 Blatehf. 548, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 
12,835. 

85. Burr v. Kimbark, 28 Fed. 574; 
Time Telegraph Co. v. Himmer, 19 Fed. 
322; Onderdonk v. Fanning, 4 Fed. 
148; American Shoe-Tip Co. v. Na- 
tional Shop-Toe Protector Co., 1 Fed. 
Ga^. Nq. 317. 

V(fl. SSI 



218 



PATENTS 



same circuit on the same facts is conclusive;^* and such decision by 
any other court, district or appellate, while not conclusive as to third 
parties, will generally be followed as a matter of comity,*^ unless in 
the sound discretion of the court the evidence produced is sufficient 
to justify a different decision.^* Therefore a preliminary injunction 
will ordinarily be granted when the prior decision holds the patent 
valid,^^ but if invalid it will be denied.*" Such decision will be dis- 



86. Grinnell Washing Mach. Co. v. 
Clarinda Lawn Mower Co., 237 Fed. 
98; Minerals Separation v. Butte & 
Superior Copper Co., 237 Fed. 401; 
Todd Protectograph Co. v. New Era 
Mfg. Co., 236 Fed. 768; Safety Car 
Heating & Lighting Co. v. Gould 
Coupler Co., 230 Fed. 848; Motion Pic- 
ture Patents Co. v. Laemmle, 178 Fed. 
104; Westinghouse Air Brake Co. v. 
Christensen Engineering Co., 113 Fed. 
594; American Sulphite Pulp Co. v. 
Burgess Sulphite Fibre Co., 103 Fed. 
975; Bowers Dredging Co. v. New York 
Dredging Co., 80 Fed. 119; American 
Bell Tel. Co. v. McKeesport Tel. Co., 
57 Fed. 661; Richardson v. Lockwood, 
4 ClifiE. 128, 20 Fed. Cas. No. 11,786; 
American Middlings Purifier Co. v. 
Christian, 4 Dill. 448, 1 Fed. Cas. No. 
307. 

[a] Certiorari by the supreme court 
does not affect the action of the lower 
court, and until a decision is rendered 
by the highest, court the district court 
must follow the decision on the ques- 
tion of the patent's validity by the 
circuit court of appeals. Minerals 
Separation v. Butte & Superior Copper 
Co., 237 Fed. 401. 

87. Cincinnati Butchers' Supply Co. 
V. Walker Bin Co., 230 Fed. 453, 144 
C. C. A. 595; Welsbach Light Co. v. 
Cosmopolitan Incandescent Light Co., 
104 Fed. 83, 43 C. C. A. 418; Kawneer 
Mfg. Co. V. Toledo Plate & Window 
Glass Co., 232 Fed. 362; Diamond 
Match Co. V. Union Match Co., 129 
Fed. 602; Western Electric Co. v. Key- 
stone Tel. Co., 115 Fed. 809; Brunswick- 
Balke-Collender Co. v. Koehler, 115 
Fed. 648- Western Electric Co. v. An- 
thracite Tel. Co., 100 Fed. 301; Edison 
Electric Light Co. v. Columbia Incan- 
descent Lamp Co., 56 Fed. 496; Lock- 
wood V. Faber, 27 Fed. 63. 

[a] An adjudication by the circuit 
court of appeals of another circuit, 
determining the validity of a patent, 
though not absolutely controlling, is 
substantially so in case of doubt. Con- 
solidated Bubber Tire Co. v. Diamond | 

VoLZZI 



Rubber Co., 157 Fed. 677, 85 C. C. A. 
349; New York Filter Mfg. Co. v. 
Niagara Falls Water Works Co., 80 
Fed. 924, 26 C. C. A. 252 (affirmng 
77 Fed. 900); Hildreth v. Auerbach, 
223 Fed. 545 (affirmed, 223 Fed. bol, 
139 C. C. A. 205); Walker Parent 
Pivoted Bin Co. v. Bernard Gloesler 
Co., 188 Fed. 435; Galculagraph Co. v. 
Automatic Time Stamp Co., 149 Fed. 
436. 

88. Cincinnati Butchers' Supply Co. 
V. Walker Bin Co., 230 Fed. 453, 144 
C. C. A. 595; Waymau v. Louis Lipp 
Co., 222 Fed. 679; General Electric Co. 
V. Condit Electrical Mfg. Co., 191 Fed. 
511; Thomson-Houston Electric Co. v. 
Sterling-Meaker Co., 140 Fed. 554; 
Brill V. Peckham Mfg. Co., 129 Fed. 
139; George Frost Co. v. Crandall 
Wedge Co., 123 Fed. 104 (affirmed, la5 
Fed. 942, 60 C. C. A. 180); Westing- 
house Electric & Mfg. Co. v. Royal 
Weaving Co., 115 Fed. 733; American 
Sulphite Pulp Co. v. Burgess Sulphite 
Fibre Co., 103 Fed. 975; WelsFaeh 
Light Co. V. Rex Incandescent Light 
Co., 94 Fed. 1006; Duff Mfg. Co. v. 
Kalamazoo E. Velocipede & Car Co., 94 
Fed. 154; Doig v. Morgan Mach. Co., 
89 Fed. 489, affirmed, 91 Fed. 1001. 33 
C. C. A. 683. ' 

89. Scott V. Laas, 150 Fed. 764, 80 
C. C. A. 500; Elite Pottery Co. v. 
Dececo Co., 150 Fed. 581, 80 C. C A 
567; Timolat v. Philadelphia Pneu- 
matic Tool Co., 123 Fed. 899; Diehl 
tH^-J'?- ^- Dayton Fan & Motor Co.. 
109 Fed. 566; Duff Mfg. Co. v. Nor- 
ton, 92 Fed. 921; Carroll v. Gold- 
schmidt, 80 Fed. 520; Woodard v Ell- 
word Gas Stove & Stampin? Co 68 
Fed. 717; S. S. White Dental Mfg. 
Go. V. Johnson, 56 Fed. 262; Carter & 
Co. V. Wollschlaeger, 53 Fed. 573- 
Schneider v. Missouri Glass Co 36 
Fed 582; Mallory Mfg. Co. v. Hiokok, 
20 Fed. 116; Coburn v. Clark, 15 Fed 
804, 5 McCrary 99. 

90. American Graphophone Co. v. 
National Gramophone Co., 92 Fed 364 
34 0. C. A. 412; Galculagraph Co. v. 



PATENTS 



m 



regarded, however, in case of coUusion,^^ or when the validity of the 
patent is clearly apparent,^^ or was not seriously contested,^^ or in 
issue.** In the event of conflicting decisions, a preliminary injunction 
is sometimes denied,*^ but the rule has been stated that the more 
recent decision should be followed,*^ or the one which appeals to the 
court as being the more correct,®^ unless the court decides the matter 
upon the facts before it.*^ ' 

3. Permanent Injunction. — a. In General. — The plaintiff in an 
infringement suit is generally entitled to a permanent injunction upon 
a determination of the case in his favor,**' irrespective of the amount 
of damages recovered,^ the age of the patent,^ solvency of the de- 
fendant,' hardship to the defendant,* or the discontinuance of the 
infringement.* But it may, in exceptional cases, within the discretion 
of the court, be withheld,* as when it is not necessary to protect the 
plaintiff's rights and its allowance would injure the public.'' 



Automatic Time Stamp Co., 149 Fed. 
436; Edison Electric Light Co. v. Cit- 
izens' Electric Light, H. & P. Co., 64 
Ted. 491; Hieks v. Beardsley, 32 Fed. 
281; Keyes v. Pueblo Smelting & E. 
Co., 31 Fed. 560; Concord v. Norton, 
16 Fed. 477; Onderdonk v. Fanning, 18 
Fed. Cas. No. 10,510a. 

91. Western Electric Co. v. An- 
thracite Tel. Co., 113 Fed. 834. See 
also Doig V. Morgan Mach. Co., 89 
Fed. 489, affirmed, 91 Fed. 1001, 33 C. 
C. A. 683. 

92. Wyckoff V. Wagner Typewriter 
Co., 88 Fed. 515; Foster v. Croasin, 23 
Fed. 400. 

93. American Coat Pad Co. v. Phoe- 
nix Pad Co., 113 Fed. 629, 51 C. C. 
A. 339; Wilson v. Consolidated Store 
Service Co., 88 Fed. 286, 31 C. C. A. 
533; Silver & Co. v. J. P. Eustis Mfg. 
Co., 130 Fed. 348; Diamond Match Co. 
V. Union Match Co., 129 Fed. 602; 
National Enameling , Co. v. New Eng- 
land Enameling Co., 123 Fed. 436; 
American Electrical Novelty Co. v. 
Newgold, 99 Fed. 567; Bowers Dredg- 
ing Co. V. New York Dredging Co., 77 
I'ed. 980. 

94. Southern Pac. Co. v. Earl, 82 
Fed. 690, 27 C. C. A. 185; American 
Graphophone Co. v. Leeds, 77 Fed. 193; 
National Hat Pouncing Mach. Co. v. 
Hedden, 29 F«d. 147; Page v. Holmes 
Burglar Alarm Tel. Co., 2 Fed. 330, 18 
Blatchf. 118; Wells v. Gill, 29 Fed. 
Cas. No. 17,394; Parker v. Sears, 4 
Clark 443, 18 Fed. Cas. No. 10,748; 
Grover & Baker Sew. Mach. Co. v. Wil- 
liams, 11 Fed. Cas. No. 5,847. 

95. WilguB V. Van Sickle, 99 Fed. 
443. 



96. Pelzer v. Geise, 87 Fed. 869. 

97. Pelzer v. Newhall, 93 Fed. 684. 

98. Maitland v. Graham, 96 Fed. 
247. 

99. Horton v. New York Cent. & H. 
E. E. Co., 63 Fed. 897; Eoemer v. Neu- 
mann, 26 Fed. 332; Avery v. Wilson, 
20 Fed. 856; Eumford Chemical Works 
V. H-ecker, 20 Fed. Cas. No. 12,134; 
Potter V. Mack, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 11,331. 

1. Dubois V. Kirk, 158 U. S. 58, 15 
Sup. Ct. 729, 39 L. ed. 895, affirming 
33 Fed. 252. 

2. American Bell Tel. Co. v. West- 
ern Tel. Const. Co., 58 Fed. 410; Amer- 
ican Bell Tel. Co. v. Brown Tel. & T. 
Co., 58 Fed. 409. 

3. Bement v. National Harrow Co., 
186 U. S. 70, 22 Sup. Ct. 747, 46 L. 
ed. 1058; Grant v. Eaymond, 6 Pet. 
(U. S.) 218, 8 L. ed. 376; General 
Electric Co. «. Wise, 119 Fed. 922. 

4. Edison Electric Light Co. v. Mt. 
Morris Electric Light Co., 58 Fed. 572, 
7 C. C. A. 375, affirming 57 Fed. 642. 

5. Western Electric Co. v. Capital 
Tel.'& Tel. Co., 86 Fed. 769; Matthews 
& Willard Mfg. Co. v. National^ Brass 
& Iron Works, 71 Fed. 518; Kane v. 
Huggins Cracker & C. Co., 44 Fed. 287; 
Facer v. Midvale Steel- Work Co., 38 
Fed. 231; Bullock Printing Press Co. 
V. Jones, 4 Fed. Cas. No. 2,132. 

Disclaimer of intention to further 
infringement, see supra, III, N, 1. 

6. Marden v. Campbell Printing 
Press & Mfg. Co., 79 Fed. 653, 25 
C. C. A. 142; Many v. Sizer, 16 Fed. 
Cas. No. 9,057. 

7. -Campbell Printing Press & Mfg. 
Co. V. Manhattan E. Co., 49 Fed. 930; 
Ballard v. Pittsburg, 12 Fed. 783; Bliss 

Vol, XXI 



220 



PATENTS 



b. Suspending or Dissolving. — After a final decree establishing 
an exclusive right to the use of a patent and awarding an injunction 
to protect it, the injunction will not be suspended while the decree 
stands,^ unless some extraordinary cause, such as the public necessity, 
be shown.^ , But after the patent expires the injunction may be dis- 
solved,^" notwithstanding there may be infringing articles extant made 
during the life of the patent, since the patentee may recover damages 
for such infringement." 

4. Violation of Injunction." — Violation of an injunction issued 
in an infringement ease is punishable by proceedings in contempt,^^ 



V. Brooklyn, 8 BlatcM. 533, 3 Fed. 
Cas. No. 1,544. 

8. Consolidated EoUer-Mill Co. v. 
Coombs, 39 Ted. 803. 

[a] In Case of Full Satisfaction. 
When one recovers satisfaction for an 
infringement of a patent caused by the 
sale of a device, no further damages 
can accrue to him from a continued 
use of that property, and the defend- 
ants are prima facie entitled to a dis- 
solution of the injunction. Steam Stone- 
cutter Co. V. Sheldons, 15 Fed. 608, 21 
Blatchf. 260. 

9. Munson v. New York, 19 Fed. 
313. 

10. Westinghouse v. Carpenter, 43 
Fed. 894. , 

11. Westinghouse v. Carpenter, 43 
Fed. 894. Contra, American Diamond 
Eock-Bpring Co. v. Eutland Marble .Co., 
2 Fed. 356, 18 Blatchf. 146. 

12. See generally 13 Standard Proc. 
284. 

13. Gordon v. Turco-Halvah Co. (C. 
C. A.), 247 Fed. 487; Chas. Green Co. 
V. Henry P. Adams Co. (C. C. A.), 247 
Fed. 485; Frank F. Smith Metal Win- 
dow Hdw. Co. V. Yates, 244 Fed. 793, 
157 C. C. A. 241; National Metal Mold. 
Co. V. Tubular Woven Fabric Co., 239 
Fed. 907, 153 C. C. A. 35; Hamilton 
V. Diamond Drill, etc. Co., 137 Fed. 
417, 69 C. C. A. 532; Diamond Drill 
& Mach. Co. 1). Kelley, 132 Fed. 978; 
Diamond Drill & Mach. Co. ». Kelley, 
130 Fed. 893; Janney v. Pancoast In- 
ternational Ventilator Co., 124 Fed. 
972; Westinghouse Air Brake Co. v. 
Christensen Engineering Co., 121 Fed. 
562; Welsbach Light Co. v. Daylight 
Incandescent Gaslight Co., 97 Fed. 
950; Stahl v. Ertel, 62 Fed. 920; Mundy 
V. Lidgerwood Mfg. Co., 34 Fed. 541; 
Bate Eefrigerating Co. v. Gillett, 30 
Fed. 683; Iowa Barb Steel- Wire Co. v. 
Southern Barbed-Wire Co., 30 Fed. 123; 
Wetherill v. New Jersey Zinc Co., 29 

Vol. XXI 



Fed. Cas. No. 17,463; Potter v. Muller, 
1 Bond 601, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 11,333; 
Poppenhusen v. Falke, 4 Blatchf. 493, 
19 Fed. Cas. No. 11,279; Phillips v. 
Detroit, 2 Flip. 92, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 
11,101; Goodyear v. MuUee, 5 Blatchf. 
429, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,577. 

Oontempt proceedings generally, see 
the title "Contempt." 

[a] Notice of contempt proceedings 
necessary. Christensen Engineering 
Co. V. Westinghouse Air Brake Co., 135 
Fed. 774, 68 C. 0. A. 476. 

[b] A portion or all of the fine, if 
any, imposed upon the defendant in 
contempt may be awarded the plain- 
tiff. Christensen Engineering Co v 
Westinghause Air Brake Co., 135 Fed. 
774, 68 C. C. A. 476; Dowagiac Mfg. 
Co. V. Minnesota Moline Plow Co 124 
Fed. 735, 61 C. C. A. 57; Cary Mfg 
Co. V. Acme Flexible Clasp Co., 108 
Fed 873, 48 C. C. A. 118; United 
States Envelope Co. v. Transo Paper 
Co., 221 Fed. 79; Macanlay v. White 
Sew. Mach. Co., 9 Fed. 698. 

[c] Mitigating circumstances (1) 
may be shown. In re De Forest Wire- 
less Tel. Co., 154 Fed. 81; Norton v. 
Eagle Automatic Can Co., 59 Fed 137- 
Iowa Barb Steel- Wire Co. v. Southern 
Barbed- Wire Co., 30 Fed. 615; Phillips 
V Detroit, 2 Flip. 92, 19 Fed. Gas. 
No. 11,101. (2) Likewise, if the in- 
junction was issued by mistake, it will 
be considered in the defendant's favor 
Westinghouse Air Brake Co. v. Chris- 
tensen Engineering Co., 128 Fed. 749. 

.[dj A new patent case will not be 
tried in the contempt proceeding. Chas 
Green Co. v. Henry P. Adams Co. (c' 
C. A.), 247 Fed. 485; Individual Drink- 
ing Cup Co. V. Public Service Cup Co , 
234 Fed. 653; Gordon v. Turco-Halvah 
Co., 233 Fed. 430. 

[e] Change to criminal prosecution 
not warranted. Tamer v. United 
States, 238 Fed. 194, 151 C. C. A. 270 



PATENTS 



221 



and in case of a colorable evasion of the decree, the court may, in its 
discretion, proceed either by contempt or by supplemental bill for 
injunction.^* But if a substantial change is made,^' or the violation 
of the injunction by any means is rendered doubtful," the plaintiff 
should bring a new suit, though in some jurisdictions with the court's 
permission he may file a supplemental bill in the original suit re- 
questing a decree extending the injunction to the new structure.^' 

IV. INFRINGEMENT OF PART OF PATENT. — Where a pat- 
entee unintentionally files specifications which are too broad, he may, 
upon entering a disclaimer, maintain a suit for infringement of the 
pa^-t of the patent which is bona fide his own.^* 

V. INJUNCTION AGAINST THREATENED INFRINGEMENT 
SUITS. — A patentee may be restrained," and also damages reeov- 



14. Gordon v. Turco-Halvah Co. (C. 
C. A.), 247 Fed. 487; Chas. Green Co. 
V. Henry P. Adams Co. (C. C. A.), 247 
Fed. 485. , 

15. Chas. Green Co. v. Henry P. 
Adams Co. (C. C. A.), 247 Fed. 485; 
Frank F. Smith Metal Window Hdw. 
Co. V. Yates, 244 Fed. 793, 157 C. C. 
A. 241; Gordon v. Turco-Halvah Co., 
233 Fed. 430. 

16. United States Playing. Card Co. 
V. Spalding, 93 Fed. 822; Enterprise 
Mfg. Co. V. Sargent, 48 Fed. 453; Truax 
V. Detweiler, 46 Fed. 117; Pennsylvania 
Diamond Drill Co. v. Simpson, 39 Fed. 
284; Temple Pump Co. v. Goss Pump, 
etc., Co., 31 Fed. 292; Wirt v. Brown, 
30 Fed. 187; Allis v. Stowell, 15 Fed. 
242; Bate Eefrigerating Co. v. East- 
man, 11 Fed. 902; Putnam v. Hollender, 
11 Fed. 75; Liddle v. Cory, 7 Blatchf. 
1, 15 Fed. Cas. No. 8,338. 

17. Frank F. Smith Metal Window 
Hdw. Co. V. Yates, 244 Fed. 793, 157 
C. C. A. 241; Eiverside Heights Orange 
Growers' Assn. v. Stebler, 240 Fed. 
703, 153 C. C. A. 501; National Metal 
Mold. Co. V. Tubular Woven Fabric Co.,- 
239 Fed. 907, 153 C. C. A. 35; Crown 
Cork & Seal Co. v. American Cork 
Specialty Co., 211 Fed. 650, 128 C. C. 
A. 154; Sundh Electric Co. v. General 
Electric Co., 217 Fed. 583; Enterprise 
Mfg. Co. V. Sargent, 48 Fed. 453; Allis 
f. Stowell, 15 Fed. 242. 

18. 16 U. S. 5t. at L. 207; TJ. S. 
Eev. St., §4922; 8 U. S. Comp. St., 
1916, §9468. 

[a] Disclaimer Necessary. — No one 
is entitled to the benefits of this sec- 
tion of tJie statute who unreasonably 
neglects or delays to enter a disclaimer 
at the patent office. See the statute, 
supra, and Hailes v. Albany Stove Co., 



123 U. S. 582, 8 Sup. Ct. 262, 31 L. 
ed. 284. 

fb] Disclaimer must be entered (1) 
before commencement of the suit, to 
entitle plaintiff to costs. See the stat- 
ute supra, and Seymour v. McGormick, 
19 How. (TT. S.) 96, 15 L. ed. 557; 
O'Reilly v. Morse, 15 How. (IT. S.) 62, 
14 L. ed. 601; Houser v. Starr, 203 
Fed. 264, 121 C. C. A. 462. (2) It 
may be filed after the commencement 
of the suit only upon such terms and 
conditions as the court may require. 
Smith r. Nichols, 21 Wall. (TJ. S.) 112, 
22 L. ed. 566. (3) But to be effective 
for all purposes it should be filed be- 
fore suit is brought. Wyeth v. Stone, 
1 Story 273, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 18,107; 
Reed r. Cutter, 1 Story 590, 20 Fed. 
Cas. No. 11,645. 

[c] A Patent Cannot Be Amended 
by MeaHS of a Disclaimer. — Hailes v. 
Albany Stove Co., 123 TJ. S. 582, 8 Sup. 
Ct. 262, 31 L. ed. 284, affirming 16 Fed. 
240, 21 Blatchf. 271. 

[d] An adjudication of invalidity 
of some of the claims of a patent, 
necessitates the filing of a disclaimer 
as to such claims before the patentee 
may recover for infringement of the 
others. F. D. Cummer & Son Co. v. 
Atlas Dryer Co., 193 Fed. 993, 113 C. 
C. A. 611; Herman v. Youngstown Car 
Mfg. Co., 191 Fed. 579, 112 C. C. A. 
185; Guarantee Trust & Safe Deposit 
Co. V. New Haven Gas-Light Co., 39 
Fed. 268. 

19. U. S.— Eollman Mfg. Co. v. Uni- 
versal Hdw. Wks., 238 Fed. 568, 151 
C. C. A. 504; 229 Fed. 579; A. B. 
Farquhar Co. v. National Harrow Co., 
102 Fed. 714, 42 C. C. A. 600, 49 L. 
E. A. 755; Murjahn v. Hall, 119 Fed. 
186; Computing Scale Co. v. National 

Vol. XXI 



222 



PATENTS 



ered,^° in a state court,^^ for making baseless threats of infringement 
suits against the customers of a manufacturer, especially when in- 
stigated by malice,^^ but not when he acts in good faith and there is 
a doubt as to the propriety of his action.^' 

VI. RECOVERY OF PENALTIES. — A. Wrongful Marking 
OF Unpatented Article. — ^ Under the statute^* an action for a pen- 
alty may be maintained against any one who falsely marks or labels 
articles as patented for the purpose of deceiving the public.^^ The 
statute applies to a corporation as well as to an individual,^" and to 
any article whether patentable or not.^^ Only one penalty is re- 
coverable when the marking is a continuous act, although a number 
of separate unpatented articles are marked.^* The action should be 
brought in the name of the informer, and not in the name of the 
United States,^^ in the federal district court where the offense is 
committed.^" 

B. Unauthorized Use of Patented Design. — Likewise it is pro- 
vided by statute that the owner of any patented design may recover, 
either by action at law or upon a bill in equity for an injunction, for 
the unauthorized use of such patent or colorable imitation thereof, in 
any federal district court having jurisdiction of the parties, a penalty 
of two hundred and fifty dollars and as much in excess thereof as the 



Computing Scale Co., 79 Fed. 962; Na- 
tional Cash Kegister Co. v. Boston 
Cash Indicator & Eec. Co., 41 Fed. 
51; Emack v. Kane, 34 Fed. 46; Ide 
V. Ball Engine Co., 31 Fed. 901; Allis 
V. Stowell, 16 Fed. 783; Motte v. Ben- 
nett, 17 Fed. Cas. No. 9,884. D. 0. 
Columbia National Sand Dredging Co. 
V. Miller, 20 App. Cas. 245. Mass. 
Aronson v. Orlov, 116 N. E. 951. 

20. Aronson v. Orlov (MasS.), 116 
N. E. 951. 

21. Aronson v. Orlov (Mass.), 116 
N. E. 951. 

28. Kelley v. Ypsilanti Dress-Stay 
Mfg. Co., 44 Fed. 19, 10 L. R. A. 686. 

23. U. S.— National Metal Molding 
Co. V. Tubular Woven Fabric Co., 236 
Fed. 745, 150 C. C. A. 77; Adriance, 
Piatt & Co. V. National Harrow Co., 
121 Fed. 827, 58 C. C. A. 163; Davison 
V. National Harrow Co., 103 Fed. 360; 
New York Filter Co. v. Schwarzwalder, 
58 Fed. 577. Mass.— Boston Diatite 
Co. V. Florence Mfg. Co., 114 Mass. 
69, 19 Am. Rep. 310. N. Y.— Hovey 
V. Rubber Tip Pencil Co., 1 Jones & 
S. 522, affirmed, 50 N. Y. 335. 

24. 16 U. S. St. at L. 203; U. S. 
Rev. St., §4901; 8 U. S. Gomp. St., 
1916, §9447. 

25. Gandy v. Main Belting Co., 143 
TJ. S. 587; 12 Sup. Ct. 598, 36 L. ed. 
272; London v. Everett H. Dunbar 
Corp., 179 Fed. 506, 103 C. C. A. 130; 

Vol. X^l 



135; Hotchkiss v. Samuel Cupples 
Dade v. Boorum & Pease Co., 121 Fed. 
Wooden-Ware Co., 53 Fed. 1018. 

[a] Patent Applied for. — The stat- 
ute does not apply to the marking of 
articles with the words, "Patent Ap- 
plied For." Schwebel v. Bothe, 40 
Fed. 478. 

26. London v. Everett H. Dunbar 
Corp., 179 Fed. 506, 103 C. C. A. 130. 

27. Oliphant v. Salem Flouring Mills 
Co., 5 Sawy. 128, 18 Fed. Cas. No. 
10,486. 

28. Hotchkiss v. Samuel Cupples 
Wooden-Ware Co., 53 Fed. 1018. 

29. United States v. Morris, 2 Bond 
23, 26 Fed. Cas. No. 15,814. 

[a] Government Not a Party. — An 
action by an informer for his own 
benefit and that of the United States, 
for a penalty under this statute, is an 
action qui tam, in which the plaintifC 
may properly describe himself as bring- 
ing the action for the benefit of him- 
self and of the United States. In 
such cases the United States is not 
regarded as a party to the action. 
Winne v. Snow, 19 Fed. 507. 

30. Hotchkiss v. Samuel Cupples 
Wooden-Ware Co., 53 Fed. 1018; Winne 
V. Snow. 19 Fed. 507; Pentlarge v. Kir- 
iby, 19 Fed. 501. 

fa] Residence of Parties. — The jur- 
isdiction o( the court does not de- 



PATENTS 



223 



profits of the offender exceed that sum.'^ This act is not exclusive 
of any other existing remedy at law or in equity, but the owner of 
the design cannot recover twice the profit made from an infringe- 
ment.^^ 

VII. ACTIONS FOR REFUSAL TO FURNISH COPIES OF 
PATENT. — Any one, upon making a proper demand and paying the 
customary fees, is entitled to authenticated copies of letters patent 
and other records of the patent office,^' and may maintain an action 
for damages against the commissioner of patents for refusal of such 
demand.^* But not if the demand be for copies of pending applica- 
tions for patents or for papers connected therewith.^^ 

VIII. CANCELLATION OF PATENT. — A. By the Govern- 
ment. — The United States may maintain a bill in equity to set aside, 
annul, or cancel a patent for an invention obtained through a fraud.^' 
Such a suit cannot be brought by an individual,^' except in eases 
where two patents have been issued for the same thing,^* but must 
be in the name of the government by the authority or permission of 
the attorney general.^* It may be in the name of the government in 
behalf of an individual,*" but the jurisdiction of equity cannot be 
thus invoked if the individual has an adequate remedy at law.*^ 



pend on the residence of the parties. 
Pentlarge v. Kirby, 19 Fed. 501. 

31. 24 U. S. St. at L. 387; 8 U. S. 
Comp. St., 1916, §9476; Crier v. Innes, 
170 Fed. 324, 95 C. C. A. 508; Frank 
V. Geiger, 121 Fed. 126; Lowell Mfg. 
Co. V. Whittall, 71 Fed. 515; Eipley 
V. Elson Glass Co., 49 Fed. 927. 

[a] Notice to the defendant that 
the design was patented must be 
shown. Dunlap v. Schofield, 152 U. S. 
244, 14 Sup. Ct. 576, 38 L. ed. 426; 
Liohtenatein v. Straus, 166 Fed. 319; 
Lichtenstein v. Phipps, 161 Fed. 578. 

[b] Wilful Ijifringement. — The 
statute does not apply to the uninten- 
tional infringement of the patentee's 
rights. Fuller v. Field, 82 Fed. 813, 
27 C. C. A. 165; Gimbel v. Hogg, 97 
Fed. 791, 38 C. C. A. 419, reversing 94 
Fed. 518. 

• [c] No Profits Necessary. — While 
the statute provides for the recovery 
of profits in excess of the sum of $250, 
it is not necessary that there bo profits 
in order to recover the penalty named. 
Pirkl V. Smith, 42 Fed. 410. 

32. 24 V. S. St. at L. 388; 8 V. S. 
Comp. St., 1916, §9477. 

33. U. S. Eev. St., §892; U. S. Comp. 
St., 1916, §1505. 

34. Boyden v. Burke, 14 How. (U. 
S.) 575, 14 L. ed. 548. 

35. United States ex reZ. U. S. Elec- 
tric L. Co. V. Commissioner of Pat- 
ents, 8 Mackey (D. C.) 233. 



36. United States v. American Bell 
Tel. Co., 128 U. S. 315, 9 Sup. Ct. 
90, 32 L. ed. 450 (reversing 32 Fed. 
591); United States v. Gunning, 18 
Fed. 511, 21 Blatchf. 516. 

37. Mowry v. Whitney, 14 Wall. (U. 
S.) 434, 20 L. ed. 860. 

[a] The attorney general of the 
United States has no power to main- 
tain iu his own name a bill in equity 
to repeal letters patent for an inven- 
tion. Attorney General v. Eumford 
Chemical Works, 32 Fed. 608, 1 Fed. 
Cas. No. 638a. 

38. Mowry v. Whitney, 14 Wall. (U. 
8.) 434, 20 L. ed. 860. See infra, 
Vlir, B. 

39. Mowrv v. Whitney, 14 Wall. (U. 
S.) 434, 20 L. ed. 860; New York & 
B. Coffee Polishing Co. v. New York 
Coffee Polishing Co., 9 Fed. 578, 20 
Blatchf. 174, 62 How. Pr. 485. 

40. United States v. American Bell 
Tel. Co., 167 U. S. 224, 17 Sup. Ct. 
809, 42 L. ed. 144. 

41. United States v. American Bell 
Tel. Co., 167 U. S. 224, 17 Sup. Ct. 
809, 42 L. ed. 144; United States v. 
Frazer, 22 Fed. 106. 

[a] General Rules Control. — The 
government has a standing in court to. 
procure the cancellation of a patent, 
either in the discharge of its obliga- 
tion to protect the public against «. 
monopoly it has wrongfully created, or 
because it owes a duty to other pat- 

VpJ. XXI 



224 



PATENTS 



B. By Individuals. — 1. In General. — Anyone interested in a 
patent, or in the working of the invention claimed under it, may 
maintain a suit in equity for relief against the owner of an inter- 
fering patent.*^ Such patents must be conflicting,*^ that is, they must 
claim, in whole or in part, the same invention,** and the ^.ourt cannot 
declare a patent invalid where such conflict does not exist.*^ But a 
suit for cancellation is not the only remedy available, since the in- 
terested party may sue for infringement.*" This proceeding is avail- 
able to one who has successfully maintained a bill in equity to obtain 
a patent.*' 



entees to secure to them the full en- 
joyment of the rights which it has 
conferred by its patents to them. In 
80 far as the latter ground is con- 
cerned, the suit is brought in the name 
of the government, simply to help in- 
dividuals, and in that respect is sub- 
ject to the same rules that govern like 
suits between private litigants'; and 
hence the government will not be per- 
mitted to- invoke the equity jurisdic- 
tion to cancel a patent against which 
the individual has a perfect legal de- 
fense availabte in any a'ction by or 
against him. United States v. Amer- 
ican Bell Telephone Co., 167 U. S. 
224, 17 Sup. Ct. 809, 42 L. ed. 144, 
affirming American Bell Tel. Co. v. 
United States, 68 Fed. 542, 15 C. C. 
A. 569. 

[b] Fraud ^owu by Becords. — A 
bill in chancery to annul a patent, on 
the ground that the patentee falsely 
and fraudulently made oath that the 
alleged improvements had not been be- 
fore known or used, when in fact the 
process described in the patent had 
ibeen fully described in a patent is- 
sued to him previously, and since ex- 
pired, will not lie in the name of the 
United States when the suit is really 
in the interest of private parties who 
have given bond to indemnify the gov- 
ernment from all costs of suit, and who 
could themselves set up sUch matters 
as a defense in a suit against them 
by the patentee. United States v. 
Frazer, 22 Fed. 106. 

42. 16 U. S. St. at L. 207: U. S. 
Rev. St., §4918; 9 U. S. Comp. St., 
1916, §9463; Sundh Electric Co. v. In- 
terborough Rapid Transit Co., 198 Fed. 
94) 117 C. e. A. 280; Palmer Pneumatic 
Tire Co. v.. Lozier, 69 Fed. 346; Dederiok 
V. Fox, 56 Fed. 714; American Roll- 
Paper Co. V. Knoppj 44 Fed. 609. 

fa] Patents ©ranted to Samfr In- 
ventor.— The fact tltat the inter-f-ereoee 

Vol. XXI 



alleged is between patents granted to 
the same inventor does not affect the 
jurisdiction of the court where the in- 
terests of the parties are antagonistic. 
Keystone Trading Co. v. Zapota Mfg. 
Co., 210 Fed. 456. 

[b] No Relation to Proceedings in 
Patent Office. — A suit in equity to 
cancel a patent on the ground of in- 
terference is entirely independent of 
and in nowise related to interference 
proceedings in the patent office and 
court of appeals of the District of 
Columbia. Atkinson v. Boardman, 1 
Fed. Cas. No. 607. 

[c] When both parties allege in- 
validity and pray for a decree an- 
nulling the adverse party's patent, the 
suit is one for interference and not 
for infringement. Electrical Accumu- 
lator Co. V. Brush Electric Co., 44 Fed. 
602. 

43. Mowry v. Whitney, 14 Wall. (U. 
S.) 434, 20 L. ed. 860; Boston Pneu- 
matic Power Co. v. Eureka Patents Co., 
139 Fed. 29. 

[a] A mere infringement is not 
enough; there must be an actual con- 
flict. Bonner v. American Sheet & 
Tin Plate Co., 160 Fed. 971. 

44. Nathan Mfg. Co. v. Craig, 49 
Fed. 370; Morris v. Kempshall Mfg. 
Co., 20 Fed. 121; Gold & Silver Ore 
Separating Co. v. United States Disin- 
tegrating Ore Co., 6 Blatehf. 307, 10 
Fed. Cas. No. 5,508; 

45. Boston Pneumatic Power Co. v 
Eureka Patents Co., 139 Fed. 29. 

46. Western Electric Co. v. Sperry 
Electric Co., 59 Fed. 295, 8 C. C. A. 
129. 

[a] Joinder. — Counts for interfer- 
ence a,nd infringement may be joined. 
American Roll-Paper Co. v. Knopp, 44 
Fed. 609; Leach v. Chandler, 18 Fed. 
262. 

47. Jones v. Starr, 26 App. Gas. (D. 
C.) 64. • ^ 



PATENTS 



225 



2. Injunction. — Injunctive relief will be granted when necessary 
to protect the rights of the parties during, or subsequent to, the suit 
for annuUment of a patent.** Where the defendant brings an action 
at law for infringement against the plaintiff in the same court, he 
will not be enjoined if it appears that the interference suit may be 
heard first;*' but where a suit to determine priority between inter- 
fering patents is pending in another district, in which the interests 
of the parties to the suit for cancellation will be determined, the 
latter will be stayed.^" 

3. Pleading. — a. Bill. — In drawing a bill for the cancellation 
of an interfering patent the general rules relating to bills in equity 
should be followed.^^ The bill should allege that the defendant is the 
owner of the interfering patent.^^ 

b. Answer. — The answer may allege the invalidity of the com- 
plainant's patent based on any ground that may exist.*^ The de- 
fendant may seek affirmative relief by alleging the validity of his 
own and the invalidity of the plaintiff's patent.^* 

4. Demurrer or Motion To Dismiss. — The general rules applicable 
to demurrers, or, in federal practice, motions to dismiss, apply in suits 



Bill in equity, see supra, I, C, 2. 

48. Palmer Pneumatic Tire Co. v. 
Lozier, 69 Fed. 346. 

' [a] The defendant may be re- 
strained from disposing of his patent 
or rights thereunder without leave of 
court. Keystone Trading Co. v. Za- 
pota Mfg. Co., 210 Fed. 456. 

[b] Threatening Future Litigation. 
Aside from a decre« annulling a pat- 
ent found to be invalid, the court may 
enjoin the patentee or owner of such 
void patent from threatening future 
litigation based thereon. Sawyer v. 
Massey, 25 Fed. 144. 

49. Palmer Pneumatic Tire Co. v. 
Lozier, 69 Fed. 346. 

50. Lockwood v. Cutter Tower Co., 
11 Fed. 724. 

51. See the title "Bills and An- 
swers." 

[a] It is permissible, as a statement 
of an ultimate conclusion of fact, to 
aver that two patents cover substan- 
tially the same inventions. Simplex 
Railway Appliance Co. v. Wands, 115 
Fed. 517, 53 C. C. A. 171. 

[b] Prayer.— (1) "Where the bill for 
cancellation also alleges infringement, 
a prayer for annulment and for gen- 
eral relief is sufficient (Nikola Teela 
Co. V. Marconi Wireless Tel. Co., 227 
Fed. 903), but (2) it is safer, and 
doubtless the better practice, to pray 
specifically for relief under the count 
for infringement as well as for annul- 



ment. Nikola Tesla Co. v. Marconi 
Wireless Tel. Co., 227 Fed. 903. 

[c] By Assignee Pendente Lite. 
Where one becomes an assignee of a 
patent involved in a pending inter- 
ference suit for cancellation, he must 
file an original bill in the nature of 
a supplemental bill and prove his in- 
terest in the invention before a de- 
cree will be entered in his favor. Ecau- 
bert V. Appleton, 67 Fed. 917, 15 C. 
C. A. 73. 

52. Nathan Mfg. Co. v. Craig, 47 
Fed. 522. 

[a] A claim of Interference is suf- 
ficiently stated by the averments of 
the existence of plaintiff's patent, the 
subsequent issuance of a patent to the 
defendant which interferes with the 
plaintiff's rights under hia patent, and 
that the enjoyment of plaintiff's rights 
under his patent is disturbed by the 
defendant making and selling ma- 
chines under his patent, and in vari- 
ous other ways. Stonemetz Printers' 
Machinery Co. v. Brown Folding Mach. 
Co., 46 Fed. 72. 

53. Nikola Tesla Co. v. Marconi 
Wireless Tel. Co., 227 Fed. 903; Fos- 
ter V. Lindsay, 9 Fed. Cas. No. 4,975, 
3 Dill. 126, 9 Fed. Cas. No. 4,976, 
commenting on and distingmsJiing Mow- 
ry V. Whitney, 14 Wall. (TJ. 8.) 434, 
20 L. ed. 858. 

54. Electrical Accumulator Coj V. 
Brush Electric Co., 44 Fed. 602. 

Vol. XXI 



226 



PATENTS 



to annul interfering patents." 

5. Hearing. — The ordinary rules of practice sbould be followed 
at the hearing of a suit for interference.'* 

6. Decree. — Either of the interfering patents may be adjudged 
void in whole or in part, or inoperative, or invalid in any particular 
part of the United States, according te the interest of the parties in 
the patent or the invention.'^ But the statute presupposes a patentable 
invention and the court may find that neither patent is valid for want 
of patentability, fraud, or other reason,'^ although it has been held 
that the court is limited to the question of priority and may declare 
either, but not both, void.'' However, if either patent be found in- 
valid, the decree should annul it, and not merely find for the plain- 
tiff or the defendant as the case may be.*" Such adjudication is a 
determination of the rights of only parties to the suit and those deriving 
title under them subsequent to the rendition of the judgment.^^ 



55. See generally the title " Demur- 
rer. '-^ 

[a] Lack of Interference. — A bill 
for interference is not demurrable if, 
on an inspection of the patents, the 
court cannot say it is impossible to 
sustain the allegation of interference 
by any evidence which can be ad- 
duced. Simplex Railway Appliance Co. 
V. Wands, 115 Fed. 517, 53 C. C. A. 
171. 

56. See the title- "Hearing." 

[a] Dismissal. — A dismissal by the 
plaintiff will not be permitttd after 
the defendant has acquired substantial 
rights in the litigation, even though 
the plaintiff disposes of his interest in 
his patent. Electrical Accumulator Co. 
V. Brush Electric Co., 44 Fed. 602. 

[b] Befereuce. — An examination be- 
fore a special examiner will not be 
stopped for the purpose of having the 
court pass on objections to evi&nce. 
Applerton v. Eeanbert, 45 Fed. 281. 

57. 16 U. S. St. at L. 207; IT. S. 
Eev. St., §4918; 8 TJ. S. Comp. St, 
1916, §9463; Nikola Tesla Co. v. Mar- 
coni Wireless Tel. Co., 227 Fed. 903. 

58. Palmer Pneumatic Tire Co. v. 
Lozier, 90 Fed. 732, 33 C. C. A. 255 
(reversing 84 Fed. 659); Eeanbert v. 
Appleton, 67 Fed. 917, 15 C. 0. A. 
73; Nikola Tesla Co. v. Marconi Wire- 



less Tel. Co., 227 Fed. 903; Dittgen v. 
Baeine Paper Goods Co., 181 Fed. 394; 
General Chemical Co. v. Blackmore, 156 
Fed. 968; Foster v. Lindsay, 9 Fed. 
Gas. No. 4,975, 3 Dill. 126, 9 Fed. Cas. 
No. 4,976, comm4enting on and distin- 
gwishmg Mowry v. Whitney, 14 Wall. 
(U. S.) 434, 20 L. ed. 858. 

59. Nathan Mfg, Co. v. Craig, 47 
Fed. 522; American Clay-Bird Co. v. 
Ligowski Clay-Pigeon Co., 31 Fed. 466 j 
Sawyer v. Massey, 25 Fed. 144; Loek- 
wood V. Cleveland, 20 Fed. 164j Pent- 
laige V. Pentlaige, 19 Fed. 817; United 
States & Foreign Salamander Felting 
Co. D. Asbestos Felting Co., 4 Fed. 813, 
18 Blatehf. 312. 

[a] Patentability is not a material 
issue in a suit for cancellation on the 
ground of interference. Pentlarge v. 
Pentlarge, 19 Fed. 817. 

60. Foster v. Lindsay, 3 Dill. 126, 
9 Fed. Cas. No. 4,976. But see Ditt- 
gen V. Racing Paper Goods Co., 181 
Fed. 394, holding that if both are 
foandl invalid the bill may be dis- 
missed and relief granted to neither 
penty 

61. 16 U. a St. at L. 207; U. S. 
Rev. St., J4918; 8 U. S, Ctmip. St., 
1»16, 89463; American Graphophone 
Co. V. National Phomsgraph Oo., 127 
Fed. 349. See Rule 25. 



PATERNITY.- 
Vol. XXI 



■See Bastardy Proceedings; Parent and ChUd. 



PAUPERS 

By the Editorial Staff. 



I. PEOCEEDINGS FOR BEMOVAL OF PAUPERS, 228 

A. General Statement, 228 

B. Jurisdiction, 228 

C. The Application, 229 

D. Judgment or Order of Removal, 229 

1. Form and Sufficiency, 229 

2. Amendments, 229 

3. Conclusiveness of, 230 

4. Vacating and Quashing, 230 

II. PROCEEDINGS TO COMPEL SUPPORT, 230 

A'. Mode of Compelling, 230 

B. Jurisdiction, 230 

C. Who May Maintain Proceeding, 230 

D. Notice to Kindred, 231 

E. Pleadings, 231 

F. Order or Judgment, 231 

1. Form and Sufficiency, 231 

2. Enforcement of, 232 

G. Costs, 232 
H. Review, 232 

in. PROCEEDINGS TO RECOVER FOR SUPPLIES AND SBRV. 
ICES FURNISHED PAUPER, 232 

A. By One Poor District Against Another, 232 

1. General Statement, 232 

2. Venue, 233 

3. Parties, 233 

4. Pleading, 233 

5. Variance, 233 

B. Bj/ Individual Against Poor Distfict, 233 

IV. ACTIONS AND DEFENSES IN FORMA PAUPERIS, 234 

A. General Statement, 234 

E. To What Proceedings Statutes Apply, 234 

1. In General, 234 

2. Tort Actions, 234 

Vol. XZI 



228 



rAUPEBS 



C. 



3. Criminal Proceedings, 235 

4. Qui Tarn Actions, 235 

5. Appeals, 235 

Who May Take Advantage of Privilege, 235 



1. Generally, 235 

2. Par. icular Classes of Persons, 235 

a. Infants, 235 

b. Married Women, 236 

c. Personal Representatives, 236 

d. Nonresidents, 236 

D. Application for Leave To Sue or Defend, 236 

1. Time for, 236 

2. Affidavit or Oath, 237 

3. Certificate of Counsel, 238 

4. Notice, 238 

5. ' Hearing and Determination, 238 

a. /w General, 238 

b. Order Allowing, 238 

E. Assignment of Counsel, 239 

F. Cosfs, 239 

G. Dispaupering, 239 

V. PROCEEDINGS FOR VIOLATION OP POOR LAWS, 239 
VL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST POOR OFFICERS, 240 

CBOSS-REFEBEITCES: 

For forms, see 9 Standard Puoc. 948, et seq. 

For further references and cross-references, see the index to this 
work and the cross-references throughout this article. 

L PROCEEDINGS FOR REMOVAL OF PAUPERS. — A. Gen- 
eral Statement. — Proceedings for the removal of paupers must b« 
conducted strictly according to statute.^ 

B. Jurisdiction^ over proceedings for the removal of paupers de- 
pends upon the local statutes.' 



1. Simpson v. Maybaum, 58 N. J. 
L. 323, 33 Atl. 814; Overseers of 
Princeton v. Overseers of South Bruns- 
wick, 23 F. J. L. 169. 

[a] Notice to tUe pauper to appear 
at the hearing must generally be given. 
See the statutes, and Mass. — Shirley 
17. Lunenburgh, 11 Mass. 379. Pa. 
Overseers of Gilpin Twp. v. Overseers 
of Parks Twp., 118 Pa. 84, 11 Atl. 
791. Vt.— Hartland v. Pomfret, 11 Vt. 
440. 

Vol. ZXI 



2. See generally the title "duils< 
diction." 

3. See the statutes, and Lucas v. 
Einggold, 21. Iowa 83 (on board of 
supervisors; neither county judge nor 
county court has any jurisdiction); 
Butler V. Dept. of Public Charities, 
158 Pa. 149, 27 Atl. 886; Directors of 
Poor of Chester County v. Malany, 
64 Pa. 144, quartet sessions have ex- 
clusive jurisdiction. 



PAUPERS 



229 



C. The application is usually made by the filing of a petition or 
complaint,* made by an overseer of the poor," with a justice of the 
peace." 

D. Judgment or Oedee op Removal. — 1. Form and SuflBciency. 
All order for the removal of a pauper should show that all the facts 
exist which are necessary under the statute to authorize such removal ; 
that the officers making such order have acted clearly within their 
authority, and that the facts necessary to authorize such order were 
duly proved before the officers making it.'' While the order must not 
be uncertain in any respect,' an adjudication that the^pauper's legal 
settlement is in a certain town is sufficient, without stating that his 
last legal settlement was in that town.^ More than one person may 
be included in the same order for removal.^" 

2. Amendments. — Errors in form may be cured by amendment ;'^ 
but defects in substance cannot be so cured.^^ 



4. Me. — Guilford v. Abbott, 17 Me. 
335. N. H. — Merrimack v. Sullivan, 
4S N. H. 181. N. J.— Simpson v. May- 
baum, 58 N. J. L. 323, 33 Atl. 814; 
setting forth all the jurisdictional 
facts. Vt. — Wilmington v. Jamaica, 
42 Vt. 694. 

5. See the statutes, and the follow- 
ing: N. H. — Merrimack v. Sullivan, 
45 N. H. 181. N. J.— Simpson v. May- 
baum, 58 N. J. L. 323, 33 Atl. 814; 
Overseers of Princeton v. Overseers of 
South Brunswick, 23 N. 3. L. 169. 
Pa. — Franklin Twp. v. Danville, 25 Pa. 
Super. 40. 

6. Vernon v. Wantage, 2 N. J. L. 
311. 

7. See the following. N. J. — Over- 
seers of New Barbadoes v. Overseers 
of Paterson, 27 N. J. L. 544; Over- 
seers of Princeton v. Overseers of 
South Brunswick, 23 N. J. L. 169; Ver- 
non V. Wantage, 2 N. J. L. 311. N. Y. 
Overseers of Poor of Shawangunk v. 
Overseers of Poor of Mamakating, 1 
Johns. 54. Pa. — Overseers of Poor of 
Dromore Tp. v. Overseers of Poor of 
West Hanover Tp., 1 Yeates 366. Vt. 
Derby v. Barre, 38 Vt. 276, holding or- 
der insufficient. 

[a] Examination of the pauper need 
not appear on the face of the order; 
nor need the testimony of any person 
be set forth. Fallowfield v. Marlbor- 
ough, 1 Ball. (U. S.) 28, 1 L. ed. 23. 

[b] Order need not state pauper's 
refusal to give security against be- 
coming chargeable. Vernon v. Want- 
age, 2 N. J. L. 311. 

[c] Age of pauper child need not 
be stated. Elizabethtown V. Spring- 
field, 3 N. J. L. 475. 



[d] Names of different persons 
constituting the pauper's family need 
not be set out in order of removal of 
pauper and his family. Windham v. 
Chester, 45 Vt. 459 (order of removal 
of a pauper, "her family and effects," 
is sufficient) ; - Landgrove v. Pawlet, 20 
Vt. 309. 

[e] Where paupers are to be sent 
out of the state, the order should des- 
ignate the route by which they are to 
be transported, and not leave it to the 
discretion of constables. Niskayuna v. 
Guilderland, 8 Johns. (N. Y.) 412. 

8. Niskavuna v. Guilderland, 8 
Johns. (N. Y.) 412. 

9. Overseers of Poor of Vernon v. 
Overseers of Poor of Smithville, 17 
Johns. (N. Y.) 89. 

10. Gloceater v. Smithfield, 2 E. I. 
30. 

11. Overseers of Princeton v. Over- 
seers of South Brunswick, 23 N. J. Ii. 
169; Vernon v. Wantage, 2 N. J. L. 
311 (wherein order was addressed to 
overseers of the poor of the township 
from whence the pauper was to be re- 
moved instead of to a constable, it 
could be amended); Cumberland v. Jef- 
ferson, 25 Pa. 463, order defective, in 
omitting to state that the person had 
or was likely to become chargeable 
should on appeal be amended. 

12. Overseers of Princeton v. Over- 
seers of South Brunswick, 23 N. J. L. 
169. 

[a] Omitting to state jurisdictional 
matter is matter of substance and not 
amendable. Overseers of Princeton 
V. Overseers of South Brunswick, 23 N. 
J. L. 169. 

Vol. ZXI 



230 



PAVPEB8 



3. Conclusiveness of. — A valid order of removal from which no 
appeal is taken is conclusive hoth as to the settlement of the pauper 
at the date of the order, and also of all other facts necessary to uphold 
the order.^' 

4. Vacating and Quashing. — An illegal order of removal will be 
quashed on motion,^* No intendment will be made against an order 
of removal, however.^" 

II. PEOCEEDINGS TO COMPEL SUPPORT. — A. Mode of Com- 
pelling. — Statutes sometimes provide a summary proceeding to com- 
pel the relatives of a pauper to furnish him support.^* In other juris- 
dictions the relative will be required to execute a bond to the poor 
district to indemnify such district for the maintenance of the pauper.^^ 

B. JuEiSDicTioN^^ over proceedings of this character is regulated 
by local statute.^* 

C. Who May Maintain Proceeding. — The application must be 
made by one having an interest in the support of the poor person, in 
order to give the court jurisdiction.^" Under some statutes, the action 



13. Poultney v. Sandgate, 35 Vt. 
146. 

14. Hardwiek v. Bawlet, 36 Vt. 320. 
[4] Motion to quash reaches only 

such defects as ar« apparent on the 
face of the papers. Landgrove v. Ply- 
mouth, 52 Vt. 503. 

[b] Where the order is clearly dou- 
ble in that it adjudicates the settle- 
ment of two persons, whose legal set- 
tlement is independent of each other, 
and the settlement of one is not in- 
cluded in and dependent on that of 
the other the order will be quashed. 
Landgrove v. Plymouth, 52 Vt. 503. 

15. Overseers of Beading v. Over- 
seers of Cumree, 5 Bin. (Pa.) 81; Dan- 
ville V. Peacham, 41 Vt. 333. 

16. See the statutes, and the fol- 
lowing: HI. — ^People ■ex rel. State's 
Attorney v. Peters, 173 HI. App. 564; 
Bogers V. Rogers, 51 111. App. 683. 
Ia,.->-Booue v. Buhl, 9 Iowa 276. N. J. 
Ackerman v. Aekerman, 55 N. J. L. 
422, 27 Atl. 807. IT. Y.— Tillotson v. 
Smith, 45 Hun 593, 12 N. Y. St. 331. 
Pa. — In re James, 116 Pa. 152, 9 AtL 
170. 

[a] Proceeding for seizure of prop- 
erty of one liable for support, see 
Downing v. Eugar, 21 Wend. (N. Y.) 
178, 34 Am. Deo. 223; People ex rel. 
Bead V. Overseers of Pooi' ot Triangle, 
23 Barb. (N. Y.) 236; Philadelphia v. 
Brennan, 6 Pa. Diet. 116. 

17. Breichelbiel v. Powles, 60 Hun 
365, 15 N. Y. Supp. 465, 39 N. Y. St. 
SS6. 

[a] Unless authority is given by 

Vol. XXI 



statute, the court cannot require the 
relative to give such a bond, however. 
N. J. — Ackerman v. Aekerman, 55 N. 
J. t. 422, 27 Atl. 807. N. Y.—In re 
Bourgeois' Case, 7 Abb. N. C. 260. Pa. 
Dierkes v. Philadelphia, 93 Pa. 270. 

18. See generally the title "Juris- 
diction." 

19. See the statutes, and Smith v. 
Palmyra, 2 Walk. (Pa.) 342; Darling- 
ton V. Darlington, 5 Pa. Co. Ct. 132, 
court of quarter sessions, rather than 
court of common pleas has jurisdiction 
in these proceedings. 

20. In re James, 116 Pa. 152, 9 Atl. 
170. 

[a] Overseer' of the poor is usual- 
ly the proper party. Mass. — Salem v. 
Andover, 3 Mass. 436. N. J. — Aeker- 
man V. Ackerman, 55 N. J. L. 422, 27 
Atl. 807. N. Y.— Tillotson v. Smith, 
45 Hun 593, 12 N. Y. St. 331; Stone 
V. Burgess, 2 Lans.' 439. See also Bald- 
win V. McArthur, 17 Barb. 414. 

[b] Kindred of the pauper may 
maintain proceedings to have other 
kindred assessed for the support of 
the pauper. Salem v. Andover, 3 Mass. 
436; Walbridge v. Walbridee, 46 Vt. 
617. 

[c] Poor person himself may bring 
the proceeding. Ackerman v. Acker- 
man, 55 N. J. L. 422, 27 Atl. 807; Ap- 
peal of O'Connor, 104 Pa. 437 (under 
act authorizing the overseers of the 
poor, or any other person or persons 
having an interest in the support of 
.any poor person, to bring the proceed- 
ing); In re Clem«nt, 5 Pa. Dist. 295. 



PAUPERS 



231 



against the kindred of a pauper should be m the name of the city or 
town in which the pauper resides.*' 

D. Notice to Kindred. — The kindred whom it is sought to com- 
pel to support the poor person must have reasonable notice of the pro- 
ceeding and an opportunity to be heard.^^ 

E. Pleadings. — The application is usually commenced by the fil- 
ing of a petition or complaint,^' which should aver, among other things, 
all the essential jurisdictional facts.^* It is sufficient to allege that 
the relative "is of sufBcient ability to relieve and maintain" the 
pauper without setting forth his income and property in detail.^" 

"Where the statute imposes the duty of support when "directed by 
the county court" the complaint in an action to recover the cost of 
supporting the pauper must allege that the defendant relative has 
been ordered by the county court to provide the required support and 
has refused.^® 

F. Order or Judgment. — 1. rorm and Sufficiency. — The order 
must contain an adjudication that the person in question is a poor 
person entitled to relief from the township, or likely to become 
chargeable thereto;^' and should direct the relative to relieve and 
maintain the poor person in a specified manner.^* Where the order 
requires several members of the poor person's family to pay a certain 
sum per week, the order should specify the names' of each of such 



21. Me. — Calais v. Bradford, 51 Me. 
414; Great Barrington v. Gibbons, 199 
Mass. 527, 85 N. E. 737, Tjy overseers 
of poor in name of town. 

22. Ackerman v. Aekerman, 55 N. 
J. L. 422, 27 Atl. 807; Kiaer v. Over- 
seers of Poor of Frankfort, 3 N. J. 
L. 5. 

[a] Such notice may be liy siim- 
mons or a rule to show cause. Aeker- 
man V. Aekerman, 55 N. J. L. 422, 27 
Atl. 807. 

23. People V. Hill, 163 HI. 186, 46 
N. E. 796, 36 L. E. A. 634; In re James, 
116 Pa. 152, 9 A-tl. 170; In re O'Con- 
nor's Appeal, 104 Pa. 437; Com. T. 
Quigg, 46 Pa. Sup«r. 390. 

24. Com. T. Quigg, 46 Pa. Super. 
390; Overseers of Poor of Walker 
Twp. V. Knisely, 17 Pa. Super. 415. 

[a] Show that the person present- 
ing it has some interest in the 'sup- 
port of the poor person named. In re 
James, 116 Pa. 152, 9 Atl. 170. 

[h] Kiow that poor person is or 
will he a charge upon the county or 
township. People v. Hill, 163 111. 186, 
46 N. E. 796, 36 L. E. A. 634, alleging 
failure to support a person "then and 
there being a pauper," sirfficient in 
absence of specific objection, 

[c] Where allegation thant town has 
incurred expense required, sufficient to 



allege that the poor person has been 
supported by the town as a pauper 
since a certain date. Hiram v. Pierce, 
45 Me. 367, 71 Am. Dee. 555. 

[d] Demand on the defendant by 
the pauper or some one on his behalf 
n-eed not be alleged in the absence of 
a statute requiring it. People v. Hill, 
163 m. 186, 46 N. E. 796, 36 L. E. A. 
634. 

25. Overseers of Poor of Walker 
Twp. V. Knisely, 17 Pa. Super. 415. 

26. Multnomah County v. Paling, 49 
Ore. 603, 91 Pac. 21; Paling v. Mult- 
nomah County, 46 Ore. 460, 80 Pac. 
1O09. 

27. Aekerman v. Ackerman, 55 N. 
J. L. 422, 27 Atl. 807. 

28. Meeker v. Moeker, 61 N. J. L. 
146, 38 Atl. 749 (should not direct 
payment arbitrarily to the guardian 
or overseer of the poor); Ackerman v. 
Ack«rman 55 N. J. L. 422, 27 Atl. 807, 
order should fix and determine what 
sum per week the relative shall forfeit 
and pay if he refuse or neglect to 
comply with the order. 

{a] Order which gives no option to 
relal^ve either to support the poor per- 
son or to pay the amount provided, is 
not void and at moat only irregular. 
Aldridge v. Walker, 73 Hun 281, 26 
N. Y. Supp. 296, 57 N. T. St. 273. 

Vol. XXI 



232 



PAUPEBa 



members and the apportioned sum each is required to pay.** The 
order should not embrace several poor persons in a joint provision.^" 

2. Enforcement of. — Where the statute provides that the sum or- 
dered to be paid "shall be levied by the process of the court," the 
order cannot be enforced by attachment and commitment.^^ 

6. CosTS.^^ — The defendants may be required to pay costs in a 
proceeding to compel the kindred of a poor person to contribute to 
his support ;'' but costs cannot be charged without statutory authority 
therefor; accordingly the applicant for the order cannot be charged 
in the absence of statute.^* 

H. Revtew.'" — In the absence of a statute,'* no appeal will lie 
in these proceedings.^' The proceeding may be reviewed by certiorari, 
but the court is restricted to an examination of the record and can- 
not review the evidence.^' 

III. PROCEEDINGS TO RECOVER FOR SUPPLIES AND 
SERVICES FURNISHED PAUPER. — A. By One Poob District 
Against Another. — 1. General Statement. — In the absence of 
statute, one town or county cannot maintain an action against an- 
other town or county for the support of a pauper.^* Where a remedy 
is prescribed by statute that remedy is generally exclusive.*" No ex- 
press form of action being provided by statute, however, assumpsit 
is proper, the statute creating a liability.*^ 



29. O'Connor's Appeal, 104 Pa. 437, 
decree that A. and B., "and the other 
adult children of the petitioner" shall 
pay a stated sum per week is too 
vague and uncertain to be self-sus- 
taining, and will be reversed. 

30. Meeker v. Meeker, 61 N. J. L. 
146, 38 Atl. 749, order should be sev- 
eral. 

31. In re James, 116 Pa. 152, 9 Atl. 
170; Dierkes v. Philadelphia, 93 Pa. 
270; Com. V. Quigg, 46 Pa. Super. 390. 

32. Oosts in general, see the title 
"Costs." 

33. South Beading v. Hutchinson, 10 
Allen (Mass.) 68; Stone v. Burgess, 2 
Lans. (N. T.) 439. 

34. Conn. — Condon v. Pomeroy- 
Grace, 73 Conn. 607, 48 Atl. 756, 52 
U E. A. 696. N. Y.— Tillotson v. Smith, 
45 Hun 593, 12 N. T. St. 331. Pa. 
Salem v. Cook, 6 Pa. Co. Ct. 624. 

[a] Under a statute allowing costs 
in any "civil action," costs may be 
given in this class of proceedings. 
Condon v. Pomeroy-Grace, 73 Conn. 
607, 48 Atl. 756, 52 L. E. A. 696. 

35. See generally the titles "Ap- 
peals;" "Certiorari; "i "Review;'-' 
"Writ of Error." 

36. Tillotson v. Smith, 45 Hun 593, 
12 N. Y. St. 331. 

37. ni. — People ex ret. State's At- 

Vol. XXI 



torney v. Peters, 173 HI. App. 564. 
Me. — Ex parte Pierce, 5 GreenL 324. 
Mass. — Nantucket v. Cotton, 14 Mass. 
243. Pa. — Overseers of Poor of Lam- 
piter Twp. v. Overseers of Poor of 
Lancaster, 2 Yeates 164; Overseers of 
Poor of Walker Twp. v. Kniseley, 17 
Pa. Super. 415. Wis. — Eaton v. Will- 
iams, 51 Wis. 99, 7 N. W. 838. Eng. 
Eeg. V. London Justices, 1 Q. B. (1900) 
438, 64 J. P. (1900) 357, 69 L. J. Q. B. 
364, 82 L. T. N. S. 296, 48 Wkly. Eep. 
319. 

38. Philadelphia v. Hays, 56 Pa. 
Super. 352 (an appeal from an order 
of the quarter sessions in proceedings 
of this kind acts as a certiorari only, 
and does not carry up the evidence); 
Overseers of Poor of Walker Twp. v. 
Knisely, 17 Pa. Super. 415. 

3(9. Middlebury v. Hubbardton, 1 
D. Chip. (Vt.) 205. 

40. Woodstock v. Hancock, 62 Vt. 
348, 19 Atl. 991. But see Wethersfield 
V. Stanford, 1 Boot (Conn.) 68, holding 
that although a statute provides a 
summary remedy in certain cases, this 
does not take away the common law 
remedy. See also Park v. Jeflferson, 
12 Colo. 585, 21 Pae. 912. 

41. m.— Clinton v. Pace, 59 111. App. 
576. Mass. — Bath v. Freeport, 5 Mass. 
325. Vt. — Woodstock v. Hartland, 21 



PAUPERS 



233 



2. Venue.*'* — An action by one poor district against another for 
relief furnished a pauper may be brought in the county of either 
party.*' 

3. Parties.** — An action to recover for supplies furnished by one 
poor district to apauper of another district should be brought in the 
name of the district.*'' In some states it may be brought in the name 
of the poor officers of the district.** 

4. Pleading^. — The declaration or complaint must allege all facts 
necessary to bring the case within the purview of the statute.*^ It 
should allege the settlement of the pauper was in the defendant county 
or district;*^ that the person relieved was unable to support himself 
and in need;*^ that the statutory notice was given ;^'' and, in some 
jurisdictions, that there are no relatives of the pauper."^ 

5. Variance."^ — The rule obtains that an immaterial variance be- 
tween the pleading and proof is of no consequence;"' but that a 
material variance will be fatal."* 

B. By Individual Against Pooe District. — A declaration or com- 
plaint by an individual against a poor district to recover for sup- 
plies or services rendered a pauper must set forth the facts bringing 
the ease within the statute."" A material variance in such an action 



Vt. 563; Pawlet v. Sandgate, 19 Vt. 
621. 

42. See generally the title "Ven- 
ue." 

43. Muskingum County Infirmary 
V. Toledo, 15 Ohio St. 409. 

44. See generally the title "Par- 
ties." 

45. Tavlor v. Green, 12 N. J. L. 124; 
Shotwell V. Thornall, 2 N. J. L. 136; 
Pawlet V. Sandgate, 19 Vt. 621. 

46. N. Y. — Alger v. Miller, 56 Barb. 
227; Pomeroy V. Wells, 8 Paige 406; 
Van Keuren v. Johnston, 3 Denio 183. 
Pa.— Overseers v. Kline, 9 Pa. 217. 
Va. — Chapline v. Overseers of Poor, 7 
Leigh (34 Va.) 231, 30 Am. Dec. 504. 

47. Fox V. Bristol, 45 HI. App. 33,0; 
Bath V. Preeport, 5 Mass. 325. See 
also the cases cited infra, this section. 

48. la. — Winneshiek v. Allamakee, 
62 Iowa 558, 17 N. W. 753. Me.— F*ye- 
burg V. Brownfield, 68 Me. 145; Eipley 
V. Hebron, 60 Me. 379. Mass.— Wren- 
tham V. Attleborough, 5 Mass. 430; 
Bath V. Preeport, 5 Mass. 325; Salem 
V. Andover, 3 Mass. 436. N". C— Burke 
County Comrs. v. Buncombe County 
Comrs., 101 N. C. 520, 8 S. E. 176. 
Wis.— Pine Valley v. Unity, 40 Wis. 
682. 

Ta] AUegation that plaintiff is "in- 
formed" that pauper's settlement was 
in the defendant county is insufScient. 



Winneshiek v. Allamakee, 62 Iowa 558, 
17 N. W. 753. 

49. Me. — Fryeburg v. Brownfield, 
68 Me. 145. Mass. — Rogers v. New- 
bury, 105 Mass. 533. Wis.— Pine Val- 
ley t>. Unity, 40 Wis. 682. 

[a] Omission To So Allege Not Fa- 
tal After Verdict. — Pawlet v. Eutland, 
Brayt. (Vt.) 175. 

50. Me. — Fryeburg v. Brownfield, 
68 Me. 145. Mass.— Bath v. Freeport, 
5 Mass. 325; Salem v. Andover, 3 Mass. 
436. N. H — Hillsborough v. Londoh- 
berry, 43 N. H. 451. Wis.— Pine Val- 
ley V. Unity, 40 Wis. 682. 

[a] Omission to allege notice must 
be taken advantage of by demurrer. 
Com. V. Dracut, 8 Gray (Mass.) 455. 

51. Walpole v. Marlow, 2 N. H. 
385, failure to so allege is cured by 
verdict. 

52. See generally the title "Vari- 
ance and Failure of Proof." 

53. Colebrook v. Stewartstown, 28 
N. H. 75, no fatal variance between 
allegation of support of four children 
and proof that there were five children 
in the family. 

54. Dalton v. Bethlehem, 20 N. H. 
505, pleading supplies furnished to 
"Jane" cannot be supported by notice 
of supplies furnished to "James," and 
variance fatal. 

55. Autauga v. Davis, 32 Ala. 703; 

Vol. XXI 



234 



PAUPERS 



between the allegations and proof is fatal."* 
IV. ACTIONS AND DEFENSES IN FORMA PAUPERIS." 

A. General Statement. — The right to prosecute or defend in forma 
pauperis did not exist at common law, but originated in the statute 
of 11 Henry VII, eh. 12."' In the absence of statute, the right does 
not exist today .''° But courts of equity have allowed suits to be de- 
fended in forma pauperis under statutes permitting suits to be brought 
in this manner. °" 

Suits in forma pauperis are not encouraged by the courts,*^ and 
should be granted only in a reasonably clear case;®'' statutes giving 
the right will not be extended by construction.*' 

Misconduct in a former case is no bar to a party suing in forma 
pauperis, where such is permitted ;'* nor is his conviction of perjury.*" 

B. To What Proceedings Statutes Apply. — 1. In General. 
This depends largely, of course, upon the language of the statutes.** 

Provisional Bemedies. — One suing in forma pauperis cannot avail 
himself of a provisional remedy without giving the statutory under- 
taking;*^ but it has been held that an attachment may issue as an- 
cillary- to the summons, in an action in forma pauperis.** 

2. Tort Actions. — It has been held that the pauper's oath cannot 
be taken in actions for false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, or 
slander.** 

An action of replevin cannot "be brought in forma pauperis.'"' How- 
ever, where the property is not taken from the defendant under the 



Rogers v. Newtury, 105 Mass. 533. See 
alao cases cited supra, III, A, 4. 

[a] Declaration in common counts 
sufficient in action against county for 
tervices rendered pauper, see Clinton 
17. Pace, 59 111. App. 576. 

56. Howe V. Eoyalton, 32 Vt. 415, 
allegation of neglect of town to pro- 
vide for support of poor person and 
proof that town on being requested 
agreed to provide for' poor person but 
failed to perform the promise. See 
generally the title "Variance and 
Failure of Proof." 

57. In admiralty practice, 'see 1 
Standard Pboc. 506, et seq. 

58. See U. S. — Roy v. Louisville, 
etc. R. Co., 34 Fed. 276. Ind.— Har- 
rison V. Stanton, 146 Ind. 366, 45 N. 
E. 582. Eng.— Oldfield v. Cobbett, 1 
Phil. 613, 41 Eag. Reprint 765. 

59. Campbell v. Chicago, etc, E. 
Co., 23 "Wis. 490. 

60. Oldfield v. Cobbett, 1 Phil. 613, 
41 Eng. Reprint 765. See also Fergu- 
son V. Dent, 15 Fed, 771. 

61. Isoard v. Cazeaux, 1 Paige (N. 
Y.) 39. 

, 62, Sea infra, TV, D, 5, 

Vol, XXI 



63. Harrison v. Stanton, 146 Ind. 
366, 45 N". E. 582. 

[a] Such statutes are strictly con- 
strued as against the applicant. Moore 
V. Cooley, 2 Hill (N. Y.) 412. 

64. Corbett v. Corbett, 16 Ves. Jr. 
407, 33 Eng. Reprint 1038. 

65. Bowyer v. M'Evoy, 1 Ball & B, 
(Eng.) 56. 

66. See the statutes. 

[a] Extends to Suits Before a Jus- 
tice of the Peace. — Harnett v. Lark, 
45 Kan. 428, 25 Pac. 869. 

67. Friedman v. Fischer, 5 N. Y. 
St. 913; Rowark v. Homesley, 68 N. C. 
91, arrest in civil case cannot be had 
in suit in forma pauperis without jury 
bond. 

68. See 3 Standard Proo. 445. 

69. Cox V. Patten, 11 Lea (Tenn.) 
545, under statute. 

70. Horton v. Vowel, 4 Heisk. 
(Tenn.) 622 (however, if bond be giv- 
en for double the value of the prop- 
erty, and the costs accumulate to a 
larger amount, on a rule for further 
security, the plaintiff may take the 
pauper 'i? oath); Kiucaid v. Bradshaw, 
6 Baxt, (Tenn.) 102. 



PAUPERS 



235 



writ of replevin, the plaintiff may proceed for the value of the prop- 
erty in forma pauperis/^ 

3. Criminal Proceedings. — Generally the rules governing costs in 
criminal proceedings are not affected by statutes allowing suits in 
forma pauperis.''^ 

4. Qui Tain Actions. — One bringing a qui tarn action cannot do 
so in forma pauperis.'^ 

5. Appeals.''^ — In some states an appeal may be prosecuted in 
forma pauperis;" but in others the right is held not to extend to 
appeals,'® 

C. Who May Take Advantage of Privilege. — 1. Generally. 
The question of who may sue or defend in forma pauperis depends 
largely upon the statute of the particular state." To take advantage 
of the statute the party must be without means to maintain or de- 
fend the suit.'* One who has assigned his interest in the subject 
matter of the suit cannot take advantage of the statute.'* 
One of several plaintiffs cannot sue in forma pauperis.*" 
2. Particular Classes of Persons. — a. Infants.^^ — By the weight 



71. stone v. Hopkins, 11 Heisk. 
(Tenn.) 190. 

72. See Ex parte Harrison, 112 Ind. 
329, 14 N. E. 225; Eex v. Clarke, 3 
Burr. 1308, 97 Eng. Eeprint 847; Eex 
V. Pearson, 2 Burr. 1039, 97 Eng. Ee- 
print 695. 

73. Johnson V. Hunter, 9 Baxt. 
(Tenn.) 185. 

[a] Unless the penalty Is given to 
the party aggrieved rather than the 
informer, in which case party aggrieved 
may sue in forma pauperis. Kirby v. 
Eiee, 8 Yerg. (Tenn.) 442. 

74. In admiralty, see 1 Standard 
Peoc. 560, et seq. 

In criminal cases, see the title 
"Eevie-w." 

In justices' courts, see 18 Standard 
Peoc. 232, 237. 

75. Ga. — Savannah v. Brown, 64 Ga. 
229. N. C— Mason v. Osgood, 71 N. C. 
212. Tenn. — Brumley v. Hayworth, 3 
Yerg. 421. 

76. Ostrander v. Harper, 14 How. 
Pr. (N. Y.) 16; Morse v. Troy, 38 Hun 
(N. Y.) 301. 

77. See the statutes, and the fol- 
lowing: U. S. — Whelan v. Manhattan 
E. Co., 86 Fed. 219; Bradford v. Brad- 
ford, 2 Flip. 280, 3 Fed. Gas. No. 1,766. 
Miss.— Walker v. Smith, 19 So. 102. 
N. Y. — McNamara v. Nolan, 13 Misc. 
76, 34 N. Y. Supp. 178. N. 0.— Davis 
V. Higgins, 91 N. C. 382; Sumner v. 
Candler, 74 N. C. 265; McClenahan v. 
Thomas, 4 N. C. 13, 6 N. C. 247, 1 Car. 
L. Eepos. 101. B. I. — Spalding v. Bain- 



bridge, 12 E. I. 244. Tex — ^Meyer v. 
Weber, 40 S. W. 627. 

78. U. S.— Wickelman v. A. B. Dick 
Co., 85 Fed. 851, 29 C. C. A. 436. N. Y. 
Isnard v. Cazeaux, 1 Paige 39. Eng. 
Burry Port Co. v. Bowser, 26 L. J. Ch. 
319, 5 W. E. 325; Perry v. Walker, 1 
CoU. 229, 13 L. J. Ch. 75, 63 Eng. Ee- 
print 396; Boddington v. Woodley, 5 
Beav. 555, 12 L. J. Ch. 15, 6 Jur. 960, 
49 Eng, Eeprint 693. 

[a] One earning twenty dollars per 
week cannot come within statute. 
Wickelman v. A. B. Dick Co., 85 Fed. 
851, 29 C. C. A. 436. 

[b] That person is of physical abil- 
ity to labor and acquire the necessary 
means will not prevent the granting of 
the application. Kerr v. State, 35 Ind. 
288. 

[c] In England if one owns prop- 
erty he cannot take advantage of the 
statute, even though such property be 
the subject of the suit. Eidgway v. 
Edwards, L. E. 9 Ch. 143, 29 L. T. 
N. S. 986, 22 Wkly. Eep. 288; Butler 
V. Gardener, 12 Beav. 525, 50 Eng. 
Eeprint 1162; Taprell v. Taylor, 9 
Beav. 493, 50 Eng. Eeprint 434; Spen- 
cer V. Bryant, 11 Ves. Jr. 49, 32 Eng. 
Reprint 1006. 

79. Joyce v. Cooper, 17 Jones & S. 
(N. Y.) 115; Davis v. Higgins, 91 N. C. 
382. 

80. Ostrander v. Harper, 14 How. Pr. 
(N. Y.) 16. 

81. Suits by or against infants gen- 
erally, see the title "Infants." 

Vol. XXI 



236 



PAUPERS 



of authority, infancy does not prevent a party from taking advantage 
of the statute.*^ 

b. Married women may sue, by next friend, in forma pauperis. '^ 

c. Personal Representatives. — Generally an executor or adminis- 
trator,'* or committee of an incompetent,*" cannot sue or defend in 
forma pauperis, though a contrary rule is recognized under some 
statutes.'^ When a suit has been regularly commenced in forma 
pauperis and the plaintiff dies, his representative may carry on the 
suit as he finds it.*^ 

d. Nonresidents are entitled to the benefit of a statute allowing suits 
or defenses in forma pauperis.'* 

D. Application foe Leave To Sue or Depend. — 1. Time for. 
The application may be made after the commencement of the suit,** 



82. See the following: V. S. — Mc- 
Duflfee V. Boston', etc. E. Co., 82 Fed. 
865; Eoy v. Louisville, N. O. & T. E. 
Co., 34 Fed. 276. IlL— Chicago & I. 
E. Co. V. Lane, 130 111. 116, 22 N. B. 
513. Ind. — Britton v. State, 115 Ind. 
55, 17 N. E. 254 (where the infant 
sues in forma pauperis it need not 
iTDe by next friend); Wright v. Me- 
Larinan, 92 Ind. 103; Hood v. Pear- 
son, 67 Ind. 368. Kan. — Missouri Pae. 
Ey. Co. V. Cooper, 57 Kan. 185, 45 
Pac. 587. Ky. — Westerfield v. Wilson, 
12 Bush 125. N. Y.— Feier v. Third 
Ave. E. Co., 9 App. Div. 607, 41 N. Y. 
Supp. 821; Shapiro v. Burns, 7 Misc. 
41 8, 27 N. Y. Supp. 980, 31 Abb. N. C. 
144, 23 Civ. Proc. 365, 58 N. Y. St. 
479; Tobias v. Broadway, etc. E. Co., 
14 N. Y. Supp. 641, 39 N. Y. St. 183. 
IT. 0.— Brendle v. Heron, 68 N. C. 495. 
Eng. — ^Bryant v. Wagner, 3 Jur. 460. 

But see Cargle v. Nashville, C. & 
St. L. E. Co., 7 Lea (Tenn.) 717; Green 
V. Harrison, 3 Sneed (Tenn.) 131; 
Cohen v. Shyer, 1 Tenn. Ch. 192. 

[a] Infant cannot appeal in forma 
pauperis by guardian ad litem. Sharer 
V. Gill, 6 Lea (Tenn.) 495; Musgrove 
V. Lusk, 5 Baxt. (Tenn.) 684. 

83. Eobertson v. Eobertson, 3 Paige 
(N. Y.) 387; Ward v. Ward, 17 N. C. 
553; Dowden v. Hook, 8 Beav. 399, 50 
Eng. Eeprint 157. But see Cargle v. 
Nashville, etc. E. Co., 7 Lea (Tenn.) 
717; Hawkins v. Hawkins, 4 Sneed 
(Tenn.) 105. 

[,a] Where a married woman is per- 
mitted to sue alone she may sue in 
forma pauperis. Eoberti v. Carlton, 18 
How. Pr. (N. Y.) 466; Hawkins v. Haw- 
kins, 4 Sneed (Tenn.) 105. 

84. Smith v. Louisville, etc. E. Co., 
89 Tenn. 664, 15 S. W. 842; Fowler v. 

Vol. XZI 



Bavies, 16 Sim. 182, 60 Eng. Eeprint 
842; Paradice v. Sheppard, Dick. 136, 
21 Eng. Eeprint 220. 

85. Beehtle v. Manhattan Ey. Co., 
31 Abb. N. C. 483, 30 N. Y. Supp. 410, 
62 N. Y. St. 120. 

86. Cherokee & P. Coal & Min. Co. 
V. Britton, 3 Kan. App. 292, 45 Pae. 
100; Mason v. Osgood, 71 N. C. 212, 
personal representatives as well as any 
other party to the record may appeal 
without giving security for costs when 
unable to do so by reason of poverty. 

87. Hamlin v. Neighbors, 75 N. C. 
66 (must make proper application at 
the time he is substituted) ; McCoy 
V. Broderick, 3 Sneed (Tenn.) 203. 

88. U. S,— St. Louis & S. F. Ey. Co. 
V. Farr, 56 Fed. 994, 6 C. C. A. 211 
(under statute of Arkansas); Heck- 
man V. Mackey, 32 Fed. 574, 19 Abb. 
N. C. 394, 13 Civ. Proc. 11, under New 
York statute. Ind. — Fuller & Fuller Co. 
V. Mehl, 134 Ind. 60, 33 N. E. 773. 
N. Y. — Early statute was held not to 
apply to nonresidents. Alexander v. 
Meyers, 8 Dalv 112; Christian v. 
Gouge, 10 Abb. N. C. 82, 58 How. Pr. 
445. Under more recent statute, a non- 
resident may, in the discretion of the 
court be allowed to sue in forma 
pauperis. Harris v. Mutual L. Ins. Co., 
59 Hun 625, 13 N. Y. Supp. 718, 20 
Civ. Proc. 192, 37 N. Y. St. 599. N. 0. 
Porter v. Jones, 68 N. C. 320. Tenn. 
Hilliard v. Stark, 14 Lea 9. See also 
Lisenbee v. Holt, 1 Sneed 42. 

89. Colo.— Peck V. Farnham, 24 Colo. 
141, 49 Pao. 364. N. Y.— Shapiro v. 
Burns, 7 Misc. 418, 27 N. Y. Supp. 
980, 31 Abb. N. C. 144, 23 Civ. Proe. 
365, 58 N. Y. St. 479. Eng.— Brunt v. 
Wardle, 3 M. & G. 534, 42 E. C. L. 
282, 4 Scott N. E. 188, 1 D. N. S. 



FAUFEES 



237 



and, it has been held, either before trial or at any stage thereof."" 
After judgment,'^ or an unreasonable delay,"^ the application comes 
too late. 

2. Affidavit or Oath. — The statutes usually provide for an affi- 
davit or for the taking of an oath showing that the person is entitled 
to the benefit thereof.*^ 

Form and Sufficiency. — The affidavit should be certain.** It must 
set forth the facts necessary to bring the applicant within the terms 
of the statute,*^ as well as showing that the applicant has a good cause 
of action."^ Any objection to the sufficiency or form of the affidavit 



229, 11 L. J. C. P. 17, 133 Eng. E& 
print 1254; Doe dem. Ellis v. Owens, 9 
M. & W. 455. 

[a] Even after an order (1) requir- 
ing security for costs (TJ. S. — WoodB 
V. BaUey, 113 Fed. 390; M&DufEee v. 
Boston, etc. K. Co., 82 Fed. 865. lU. 
Clement v. Brown, 30 111. 43. Kan. 
Huey 1}. Brimer, 9 Kan. App. 149, 58 
Pae. 485. N. M.— Bearup v. Coffer, 9 
N. M. 500, 55 Pae. 289. N. Y.— Shear- 
man V. Pope, 106 N. Y. 664, 12 N. E. 
713; Shapiro v. Burns, 7 Misc. 418, 27 
N. Y. Supp. 980, 58 N. Y. St. 479, 23 
Civ. Proc. 365, 31 Abb. N. C. 144. 
Tex. — Missouri Pae. Ey. Co. «. Eich- 
mond, 73 Tex. 568, 11 S. W. 555, 15 
Am. St. Eep. 794, 4 L. E. A. 280), 
though (2) application made long after 
order requiring security for costs comes 
too late. Glasberg v. Dry Dock, E. B. 
& B. E. Co., 12 Civ. Proc. (N. Y.) 
SO. 

90. Peck V. Farnham, 24 Colo. 141, 
49 Pae. 364. 

91. Ostrander v. Harper, 14 How. 
Pr. (N. Y.) 16. . „„ 

92 Sweeney v. White, 10 Misc. 29, 
30 N. Y. Supp. 1051, 63 N. Y. St. 242, 
delay of three years after issue joined. 

93. See the statutes, and infra, this 
section. 

[a] When an appeal in forma 
pauperis is allowed, provision is usually 
made for the filing of an affidavit or 
oath. Ga. — Hines v. Eosser, 27 Ga. 85; 
Elder v. Whitehead, 25 Ga. 262. N. C. 
Stell V. Barham, 85 N. C. 88. Tenn. 
State V. Gannaway, 16 Lea 124. 

[b] Such affidavit must generally 
be made by the pauper himself, not by 
his attorney. Selma, E. & D. E. Co. v. 
Tyson, 48 Ga. 351. 

[c] Where infants seek to use the 
statute, their next friend may make 
the affidavit. McDuffee v. Boston, etc. 
E. Co., 82 Fed. 865. 

[d] The husband is the proper one 



to make the affidavit where he and 
his wife sue jointly. MePhatridge v. 
Gregg, 4 Coldw. (Tenn.) 324; Grills 
V. Hill, 2 Sneed (Tenn.) 711; Crockett 
V. Maxey, 4 Wills. Civ. Cas. (Tex.), 
§292, 18 S. W. 138. 

[e] Where there is more than one 
plaintiff, each one seeking to take ad- 
vantage of the statute must make his 
affidavit. McDuffee v. Boston, etc. E. 
Co., 82 Fed. 865; MePhatridge v. Gregg, 
4 Coldw. (Tenn.) 324; Grills v. Hill, 2 
Sneed (Tenn.) 711. 

[f] One partner may make the affi- 
davit for the firm. Standard Gar- 
bonatiug & S. Co. v. Capital City 
Guards, 99 Ga. 265, 25 S. E. 670. 

94. Woods V. Bailey, 111 Fed. 121, 
so that charge of perjury could be 
based thereon, if it was false. 

95. See the following: XJ. S. — ^Boyle 
V. Great Northern E. Co., 63 Fed. 539. 
N. Y. — Eutkowsky v. Cohen, 74 App. 
Div. 415, 77 N. Y. Supp. 546, 11 N. Y. 
Ann. Cas. 255; McGillicuddy v. Kings 
County El. Ey. Co., 10 Misc. 21, 30 
N. Y. Supp. 833, 62 N. Y. St. 648. N. C. 
Maggett V. Eoberts, 108 N. C. 174, 12 
S. E. 890. 

[a] Show that he is unable to pay 
the expenses of the suit. Gibbons v. 
McComb, 3 Ga. 252. 

96. See the following: N. Y. — Wein- 
stein V. Prank, 56 App. Div. 275, 67 
N. Y. Supp. 746; McGillicuddy v. 
Kings County El. Ey. Co., 10 Misc. 21, 
30 N. Y. Supp. 833, 62 N. Y. St. 648; 
Beyer v. Clark, 29 Abb. N. C. 338, 
affidavits by both parties as to merits 
of cause of action were here pre- 
sented. N". C. — Miazza v. Calloway, 74 
N. C. 31. R. I.— Lewis v. Smith, 21 
E. 1. 324, 43 Atl. 542. 

[a] Court will sometimes req.ulre 
evidence that the applicant has a prob- 
able cause of action. Eobertson v. 
Eobertson, 3 Paige (N. Y.) 387, court 

Vol. XXI 



238 



PAUPERS 



should be made promptly.^' An insufficient afiSdavit or oatt may be 
amended,^' or a new oath may be taken.** 

3. Certificate of Counsel. — In some jurisdictions, the application 
to sue in forma pauperis must be aecompamied by a certificate of 
counsel that the applicant has a good cause of action.^ 

4. Notice of the application must be given to the opposite party, 
where the application is made after the commencement of the suit and 
the adverse party has appeared.^ 

5. Hearing and Determination. — a. In General. — The court will 
inquire into the facts before granting the application,^ as there must 
be some showing in support of the affidavit.* There is authority to 
the effect that if the application is not contested, it will be granted, 
however.^ The application may be contested by counter-affidavits," 

Discretion of Court. — It is largely discretionary with the court 
whether one shall be allowed to proceed in forma pauperis f^ and the 
application should only be granted in a clear ease.* 

b. Order Allowing. — The order granting leave to sue as a pauper 
extends only to the court in which it is made.' Under some statutes 



will ascertain by report of a master 
whether probable cause exists. 

97. Hood V. Pearson, 67 Ind. 368; 
Seymour v. Maddox, 19 L. J. Q. B. 
(Eng.) 525. 

[a] Application, of Administrator. 
Daus V. Nussberger, 25 App. Div. 185, 
49 N. Y. Supp. 291. 

98. Cole V. Hoeburg, 36 Kan. 263, 
13 Pao. 275; Atchison v. Eiggle, 6 Kan. 
App. 5, 49 Pae. 616; Morris 1}. Smith, 
11 Humph. (Tenn.) 133. 

[a] Amendment Nunc Pro Tunc. 
Heckmau v. Mackey, 32 Fed. 574, 19 
Abb. N. C. 394, 13 Civ. Proc. 11. 

99. Morris v. Smith, 11 Humph. 
(Tenn.)' 133. 

1. In re Atkinson, 23 Ir. L. Eep. 
509; Bryant v. Wagner, 7 Dowl. P. O. 
(Eng.) 676, 3 Jur. 893. 

2. Ostrander v. Harper, 14 How. Pr. 
(N. Y.) 16; Thomas v. Wilson, 6 Hill 
(N. Y.) 257; Isnard v. Cazeaux, 1 
Paige (N. Y.) 39. But se« Peek v. 
Parmham, 24 Colo. 141, 49 Pac. 364, 
holding that where the application is 
made at the trial, notice is not re- 
quired. 

3. Boyle v. Great Northern E. Co., 
63 Fed. 539. 

4. Whittle V. St. Louis, etc. E. Co., 
104 Fed. 286; Whelan v. Manhattan 
E. Co., 86 Fed. 219; Columb v. Webster 
Mfg. Co., 76 Fed. 198. 

5. U. S.— McDuffee v. Boston, etc. 
E. Co., 82 Fed. 865. AiTk. — Daniel v. 
Guy, 19 Ark. 121. N. Y.— Kahn V. 

Vol. XXI 



Singer Mfg. Co., 18 Misc. 568, 42 N. Y. 
Supp. 461. 

6. Kahn v. Singer Mfg. Co., 18 Misc. 
568, 42 N. Y. Supp. 461; Weatherford, 
M. W. & N. W. Ey. Co. v. Duncan, 10 
Tex. Civ. App. 479, 31 S. W. 562, 
where 'statute provides that only clerk 
can make counter-affidavit, one made 
by another will be stricken out. 

7. m. — Chicago & I. E. Co. v. lAne, 
130 111. 116, 22 N. E. 513; Clememt v. 
Brown, 30 III. 43; Eockford v. Eua- 
sell, 9 111. App. 229. Ind.^-Hoey v. 
McCarthy, 124 Ind. 464, 24 N. E. 1038. 
N. Y. — Joyce v. Cooper, 17 Jon«s & S. 
115; Alexander v. Meyers, 8 Daly 113. 
E. I. — Spalding v. Bainbridge, 12 E. I. 
244. 

8. Ind. — Hoey v. McCarthy, 124 Ind. 
464, 24 N. E. 1&38. N. Y.— Harris v. 
Mutual L. Ins. Co., 59 Hun 623, 13 
N. Y. B^ppt. 718, 20 Civ. Proc. 192, 
37 N. Y. at. 599; Downs v. Farley, 12 
Civ. Pros. 119, 18 Abb. N. C. 464. 
N. 0.— -Miazza v. Calloway, 74 N. C. 
31. 

Construction of statutes giving rlgbt, 
see supra, IV, A. 

9. Oakes v. High, 11 Misc. 313, 32 
N. Y. Supp. 289, 65 N. Y. St. 497; 
Collett V. Frazier, 56 N. C. 398; Clark 
V. Dupree, 13 N. C. 411. 

[a} Where case is moved by con- 
sent to another court, application to 
preceefl' in forma pauperis must be 
made anew. Collett V. Frazier, 56 N. C. 



PAVPEBS 



239 



the order permitting prosecution of suit in forma pauperis must pro- 
vide for attorney to act without compensation.^* 

E. Assignment op Counsel. — Counsel will be assigned by the 
court to act for the pauper in some jurisdictions.^^ 

F. Costs." — One suing in forma pauperis may, if successful, 
recover his costs;" and suing as a pauper does not relieve him of 
liability for costs if judgment goes against him." 

G. Dispaupering. — On motion duly made for that purpose,^'' the 
court may, for good cause, vacate the order permitting the suit to 
be maintained in forma pauperis.^' On dispaupering, the suit should 
not be dismissed, but plaintiff should be allowed to file bond for 
costs ^' 

V. PROCEEDINGS FOR VIOLATION OP POOR LAWS. — An 
action on the case cannot be brought by the overseers of the poor 
who have expended money to mEiintaiia a pauper illegally brought by 
the defendailts into a poor district; the remedy is to recover the 
penalty given by statute.^^ And no action will lie for bringing a 
pauper into a district, until such district has incurred some liability 
for the support of the pauper." Such an action may then be brought 
by the superintendents of the poor of the district.^" 

The declaration or complaint, in an action for illegally bringing 
a pauper into a poor district, must allege the facts necessary to 
bring the case within the statute.''^ Under a plea of not guilty, de- 



10. See the statutes, and eases cited 
under two succeeding notes. 

11. U. S. — Whelan v. Manhattan E. 
Co., 86 Fed. 219, Ind — Wright v. Mc- 
Larinan, 92 Ind. 103; Kerr v. State, 
35 Ind. 288. N. Y.— Daus v. Nuss- 
berger, 25 App. Div. 185, 49 N. Y. 
Supp. 291. Eng. — Lewis v. Kennett, 3 
Euss. 466, 38 Eng. Eeprint 650. 

[a] Attorney Designated by Party 
Need Not Be Assigned. — ^Helmpreeht v. 
Bowen, 87 Hun 362, 34 N. Y. Supp. 
1141, 68 N. Y. St. 873. 

[b] Counsel Acts Without Cpmpen- 
satiou. — Whelan v: Manhattan E. Co., 
8© Fed. 219; Matter of Kelly, 12 Daly 
(N. Y.) 110; Joyce v. Cooper, 17 Jones 
& S. (N. Y.) 115; Helmprecht v. Bowen, 
87 Hun 362, 34 N. Y. Supp. 1141, 68 
N. Y. St. 873., 

12. As to generally, see the title 
"Costs." 

13. Lampy v. Freedman, 60 Misc. 
70, 111 N. Y. Supp. 685. See also 
Draper v. Buxton & Co., 90 N. C. 182; 
Booshee v. Surles, 85 N. C. 90. 

14. XT. S. — Davis v. Adams, 109 Fed. 
271. Miss. — Leggett v. Eyan, 55 Miss. 
379. Tex. — McPherson v. Johnson, 69 
Tex. 484, 6 S. W. 798. 

Contra, under statute, Booshee v. 
Surles, 85 N. C. 90. 



1 15. Buecolo V. New York L. Ins. 
!Co., 117 App. Div. 423, 102 N. Y. 
Supp. 794. 

16. Xr. a— Woods V. Bailey, 122 Fed. 
967. Miss.— Feazell v. Staltzfus, 98 
Miss. 886, 54 So. 444. N. Y.— Steele 
V. Mott, 20 Wend. 679. N. C— Alston 
V. Holt, 172 N. C. 417, 90 S. E. 434. 
Temi. — Meyers v. Meyers, 11 Heisk. 
49.5; 

[a] Sufficiency of showing rests 
largely in discretion of court. Young 
V. Nassau Elec. E. Co., 34 App. Div. 
126, 54 N. Y. Supp. 600; Heatherly v. 
iHill, 8 Baxt. (Tenn.) 170. 

[b] Court Should Proceed Cautious- 
ly. — Heatherly v. Hill, 8 Baxt. (Tenn.) 
170. 

17. See Dale v. Presnell, 119 N. C. 
489, 26 S. E. 27. 

18. Crouse v. Mabbett. 11 Johns. 
(N. Y.) 167. 

19. Suprs. of the Poor of Newaygo 
County V. Nelson, 75 Mich. 154, 42 N. 
W. 797, no suit lies where defendant 
has paid all expenses of the pauper 
while in the district. 

20. Suprs. of the Poor of Newaygo 
County V. Nelson, 75 Mich. 154, 42 N. 
W. 797. 

21. Merrimack v. Sullivan, 45 N. H. 
181, failure to allege that pauper was 

Vol. XXI 



240 



PAUPERS 



fendant cannot prove that the pauper has a settlement in some town 
other than the plaintiff town.^^ 

The question of the intent of the defendant, in illegally bringing 
a pauper into a poor district, is one of fact for the jury.^^ 

Where a town has brought one action against a defendant for 
illegally bringing a pauper into such town and recovered judgment 
for the support of the pauper up to the time of trial, a second action 
cannot be thereafter maintained to recover any subsequent expense 
for caring for the pauper.^* 

VI. PROCEEDINGS AGAINST POOR OFFICERS. — An indict- 
ment will lie against poor officers for wilful neglect of duty.^° Man- 
damus is also a proper remedy to compel poor officers to perform their 
duties.^* 



brought into the county by one know- 
ing him to be a pauper vitiates com- 
plaint. 

22. Marshfield v. Edwards, 40 Vt. 
245, such plea only puts in issue al- 
legations of declaration or complaint. 

23. Me. — Sanf ord v. Emery, 2 Greenl. 
5. Mass. — Deerfield v. Delano, 1 Pick. 
465; Greenfield v, Cushman, 16 Mass. 
393. Vt.— Wallingford v. Gray, 13 Vt. 
228. 

24. Marlborough v. Sisson, 31 Conn. 
332, the case is not like that of a 
continuing nuisance. 

25. State v. Hoit, 23 N. H. 355, even 
though mandamus might also lie. 

Existence of criminal prosecution as 
bar to mandamus, see the title "Man- 
dajnus. ' ' 

[a] Essentials of.— (1) An indict- 



ment against a poor officer for failure 
to relieve a pauper should allege that 
the defendant is a poor officer (State 
V. Hoit, 23 N. H. 355); (2) that it 
was his duty to relieve the pauper, and 
that he intentionally and wilfully 
neglected to do so. State v. Hoit, 28 
N. H. 355. (3) The names of the 
paupers should "be set forth or the in- 
dictment should allege that the names 
are unknown. State v. Hawkins, 77 
N. C. 494. See generally the title 
"Indictment and Information." 

26. Minklaer v. Bockfeller, 6 Cow. 
(N. Y.) 276, action on case will not 
lie for failure of overseer of poor to 
apply to justice to obtain order for 
relief of pauper; mandamus is remedy. 

As to mandamus generally, see the 
title "Mandamus." 



PAWN. — See Pawnbrokers; Pledges. 



Vol. XXI 



PAWNBROKERS 



By the Editorial Staff. 



I. ACTIONS BY PAWNER AGAINST PAWNEE, 241 

II. ACTIONS BY PAWNEE AGAINST THIRD PERSON, 241 

III. CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS AGAINST PAWNBROKERS, 

241 

CBOSS-REFEBENCES: 

Personal Property; Pledges. 

For further references and cross-references, see the index to this 
work and the cross-references throughout this article. 

I. ACTIONS BY PAWNER AGAINST PAWNEE. — An action 
for conversion will lie against a pawnbroker who purchases the goods 
pawned with him, at a sale not held in strict accordance with the 
law.^ So also, conversion is the proper remedy where the pawnbroker 
refuses to redeliver property on payment of the charges.^ 

II. ACTIONS BY PAWNEE AGAINST THIRD PERSON. — The 

pawnbroker may maintain trover or replevin against a third person 
unlawfully seizing goods pawned to him.' 

III. CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS AGAINST PAWNBROKERS. 

A complaint for carrying on the business of a pawnbroker without 
a license is sufiBcient if it follows the language of the statute.* Such 



1. TTnele Sam's Loan Office v. Em- 
ery, 49 Tex. Civ. App. 236, 107 S. W. 
1155. See generally the title "Trover 
and Conversion." 

2. Schwartz v. Chicago State Pawn- 
ers Soc, 195 111. App. 93; Buchanan 
V. Provident Loan Soc, 63 Mise, 269, 
116 K. Ti Supp. 653; McKenna v. 
Weaver, 133 N. Y. Supp. 427. 

[a] Payment or tender (1) of the 
amount due is generally a necessary 
condition precedent to replevin or tro- 
ver for failure to return pawned goods. 
Dyer v. Weinstein, 196 III. App. 398. 
(2) But if pawnbroker refuses to 
return goods because third persons 
claim them, a complaint in conversion 



need not allege tender of amount of 
loan and interest. Buchanan v. Provi- 
dent Loan Soc, 63 Misc. 269, 116 N. 
T. Supp. 653. See generally the title 
"Tender."- 

3. Barnes v. Swift 's Exrs., 11 Ohio 
Dec. (Eeprint) 321, 26 Wkly. L. Bui. 
110; Swire v. Leach, 18 C. B. N. S. 
479, 11 Jur. N. S. 179, 34 L. J. C. P. 
180, 11 L. ,T. N. 8. 680, 13 Wkly. Eep. 
385, 114 E. C L. 479, 144 Eng. Ee- 
print 531. See generally the titles 
"Replevin;" "Trover and Conver- 
sion." 

4. Com. V. Danziger, 176 Mass. 290, 
57 N. E. 461; City of St. Joseph v. 
Levin, 128 Mo. 588, 31 S. W. 101, 49 



Vol. XXI 



242 



PAWNBROKERS 



a complaint need not state the times when," or the names of persons 
to whom," loana were made by the defendant. 

Am. St. Eep. 577. See generally 12.| State, 7& Tex. Crim. 17, 169 S. W. 



Standard Peoc. 447. 

5. City of St. Paul v. Lytle, 69 
Minn. 1, 71 N. W. 703; Sehapiio- «; 

Vol. XXI 



6. City of St. Paul v. Lytle, 69 
Miim-. 1, 71 N. W. 703. 



PAYMENT 

By tke Editorial Staffi. 



I. PLEADING, 244 



A. Negativing Payment in Declaration or Complaint, 244 
' B. Payment as Defense, 244 

1. Nature of, 244 

2. Plea of Payment, 245 

a. Necessity for, 245 

(I.) At Common Law, 245 
(II,) Under Statutes, 246 

b. Form and Sufficiency,, 248 
(I.) In General, 248 

(II.) Payment in Money or Its Eqinivaient, 25ft 
(A.) In General), 250 
(B.) Alleging Acceptance of Note, Pay- 
ment of Check, etc., 251 

c. Constru.ction, Operation and' Effect, 251 

C. Replication or Reply, 252 

D. Objections to Pleading, 253 

II. TRIAL, 253 

A. In General, 253 

B. Variance, 253 

C. Questions of Law and Fact, 254 

D. Instructions, 255 

III. VERDICT, JUDGMENT AND REVIEW, 256 

CBOSS-BEFEKENCES: 

Accord and Satisfaction; Deposit in Court; 

Bills and Notes ; Tender. 

As to performance in general, see the title "Implied and Express 
Agreements. ' ' 

As to presumptions, burden of proof, mode of proof, etc.» see & 
Enct. of Bv. 696. 

For forms, see 9 Standard Prgc. 950, et seq. 

For further references and cross-references, see the index to this 
work and the cross-references throughout this, artiele. 

Vol. XXI 



244 



PAYMENT 



I. PLEADINGr. — A.. Negativing Payment in Declaration ob 
Complaint. — ^Nonpayment should be alleged in the declaration or 
complaint, whenever it is an essential element of plaintiff's case.^ 
If necessary to plead nonpayment, it is the better practice to allege 
it directly,^ although a statement that the debt or obligation is "justly 
due and payable,"* or that defendant is indebted to plaintiff,* is 
sufficient. 

B. Payment as Defense.' — 1. Nature of. — Payment, when new 
matter, is an affirmative defense." It is matter in bar and cannot 



1. Ala.— Winter v. Pollak, 188 Ala. 
153, 66 So. 11; 166 Ala. 255, 51 So. 
998, 52 So. 829, 53 So. 339, 139 Am. 
St. Rep. 33, dissenting opinion. Cal. 
Kirk V. Eoberta, 96 Cal. xvii, 31 Pae. 
620; Grant v. Sheerin, 84 Cal. 197, 23 
Pac. 1094. Conn. — Morehouse v. Throck- 
morton, 72 Conn. 449, 44 Atl. 747. 
Mo. — State v. Peterson, 142 Mo. 
526, 39 S. W. 453, 40 S. W- 1094. Neb. 
Hudelson v. First Nat. Bank, 51 Neb. 
557, 71 N. W. 304. N. Y.— Lent v. 
New York & M. Ry. Co., 130 N. Y. 
504, 29 N. E. 988; Krower v. Reynolds, 
99 N. Y. 245, 1 N. E. 775; Van Giesen 
V. Van Giesen, 10 N. Y. 316; Altman 
V. Bungay Co., 161 App. Div. 583, 146 
N. Y. Supp. 949. Wis. — Meating v. 
Tigerton Lumb. Co., 113 Wis. 379, 89 
N. W. 152. 

See also 11 Standard Peoc. 1006, 
1008. 

[a] Balance Due for Services Ren- 
dered is an action in which the allega- 
tion of nonpayment is essential and 
must be alleged. Mills v. Lantrip, 170 
Ky. 81, 185 S. W. 514. 

[b] Nonpayment of the award 
should be alleged in an action to re- 
cover the same. Lent v. New York & 
M. Ry. Co., 130 N. Y. 504, 29 N. E. 
988. 

[c] In an action on a promissory 
note, an allegation of non-payment is 
essential. Mitchell v. Clark, 71 Cal. 
163, 11 Pac. 882, 60 Am. Rep. 529; 
Friseh v. Caler, 21 Cal. 71. See Van 
Gieson v. Van Gieson, 12 Barb. (N. Y.) 
520. Contra, Hartzell v. McClurg, 54 
Neb. 313, 74 N. W. 625. 

[d] Nonpayment at Maturity. — 
Conkling v. Weatherwax, 181 N. Y. 258, 
268, 73 N. B. 1028. 

Alleging nonpayment to an assignor 
In an action by an assignee, see 3 
Standard Pkoc. 130. 

Allegation of nonpayment of com- 
missions in an action by a factor or 
broker, see 8 Standard Peoc. 894. 

V9l. XXI 



Allegation of nonpayment In an ac- 
tion on a guardian's bond, see 10 
Standard Peoc. 893. 

2. Friseh v. Caler, 21 Cal. 71. See 
also 11 Standaed Peoc. 1008. 

3. De Cou Bros. Co. v. Englander, 
39 Pa. Super. 243. 

4. Jaqua v. Cordesman & Egan Co., 
106 lud. 141, 5 N. E. 907. 

5. Ala.— Wolflfe v. Nail, 62 Ala. 24; 
Slaughter v. Martin, 9 Ala. App. 285, 
63 So. 689. Ariz. — Rountree v. Clanton, 
17 Ariz. 107, 149 Pac. 58. Ark.— Wil- 
liams 1). TJzzell, 108 Ark. 241, 156 S. W. 
843; Blaas v. Lawhorn, 64 Ark. 466, 42 
S. W. 1068. Cal — Friseh v. Caler, 21 
Cal. 71. Colo. — Welles v. Colorado Nat. 
Life Assur. Co., 49 Colo. 508, 113 Pac. 
524; Thomas v. Carey, 26 Colo. 485, 58 
Pae. 1093; Perot v. Cooper, 17 Colo. 80, 
28 Pac. 391, 31 Am. St. Rep. 258. Conn. 
Morehouse v. Throckmorton, 72 Conn. 
449, 44 Atl. 747. Fla.— Lakeside Press, 
etc. Co. V. Campbell, 39 Fla. 523, 22 So. 
878. 111.— Harlev v. Harlev, 67 HI. 
App. 138. Ind. — Rhodes v. Webb-Jam- 
eson Co., 19 Ind. App. 195, 49 N. E. 283; 
Cox V. Hayes, 18 Ind. App. 220, 47 N. 
E. 844. Ky.— White's Admr. u. White's 
Admr., 19 Ky. L. Rep. 1590, 44 S. W. 
83. Minn.— Marshall & Haley Bank «. 
Child, 76 Minn. 173, 78 N. W. 1048. 
Miss.— Sivley v. Williamson, 112 Miss. 
276, 72 So. 1008. Mo.— People's Bank 
V. Stewart, 136 Mo. App. 24, 117 S. W. 
99. N. J.— Turner v. Hill, 56 N. J. Eq. 
293, 39 Atl. 137. N. Y.— Lerche v. 
Brasher, 104 N. Y. 157, 10 N. E. 58; 
Tuchfabriken v. Meyer, 31 App. Div. 
52, 52 N. Y. Supp. 955. Okla.— Stand- 
ard Fashion Co. v. Joels, 159 Pac. 846. 
Pa. — Hellings v. Amey, 1 Whart. 63. 
Tex.— Garrett v. Grisham (Tex. Civ. 
App.), 156 S. W. 505. Wash.— Pickle 
V. Anderson, 62 Wash. 552, 114 Pae. 
177. Wis.- Knapp v. Runala, 37 Wis. 
135. 

[a] Origin and Reason. — (1) "The 
rule that payment is an affirmative de- 



PA7MMT 



245 



be pleaded by way of set-off,* recoupment,^ counterclaim,' or recon- 
vention." 

2. Plea of Payment. — a. Necessity for. - (i.) At common Law. 
The common law rule, still in force in many states,^" was that pay- 



fense is not one embodied in the Code, 
but had its oriigin under the common 
law practice in the plea of non-assump- 
sit, and the reason for it was that in 
assumpsit the allegation in the declar- 
ation and the traverse in the plea were 
in the past tense, and under the rule 
which excluded all proof not strictly 
within the issue, no evidence was ad- 
missible, except such as had a tendency 
to show that the defendant never had 
made the promise. It was never ap- 
plied in the action of debt, the allega- 
tion in that form of action being in 
the present tense, and under the plea 
of nil debet any fact tending to show 
that there was no indebtedness on the 
part ot the defendant was admissible. ' ' 
Lent V. New York & M. Ey. Co., 130 N. 
Y. 504, 29 N. E. 988. (2) This state- 
ment is based upon the early common 
law rule on the plea of non assumpsit, 
which was changed to permit, as in nil 
debet, evidence of payment, which 
change was in turn abrogated by stat- 
ute. McKyring v. Bull, 16 N. Y. 297, 
69 Am. Dee. 696. See infra, I, B, 2, 
a, (II). 

[b] VHien Payment Is or Is Not 
New Matter. — (1) When a contract 
sought to be enforced is for the pay- 
ment of money only, the plea of pay- 
ment is an afSrmative defense (Patter- 
son V. J. W. G-age Eealty Co., 164 App. 
Div. 787, 150 N. Y. Supp. 215; Skelly 
17. Mortimer, 154 App. Div. 921, 138 N. 
Y. Supp. 1100), (2) but not otherwise, 
as for example, the payment of money 
and the execution of a mortgage as se- 
curity for part of the purchase price of 
realty (Patterson v. J. W. Gage Eealty 
Co., 164 App. Div. 787, 150 N. Y. Supp. 
215), or (3) when the action is not 
upon contract for the payment of mon- 
ey, but is based on an obligation cre- 
ated by operation of law (Pktterson v. 
J. W. Gage Eealty Co., 164 App. Div. 
787, 150 N. Y. Supp. 215; Altman v. 
Bungay Co., 161 App. Div. 583, 146 N". 
Y. Supp. 949), or (4) for the recovery 
of the full amount of a lien due by 
reason of the nonpayment of an instal- 
ment, interest, or taxes (Altman v. 
Bungay Co., 161 App. Div. 583, 146 N. 
Y. Supp. 949), or (5) when the cause 



of action is founded upon a breach of 
contract to pay on demand. Smith v. 
State Bank, 61 Misc. 647, 114 N. Y. 
Supp. 56. (6) Nor is payment an af- 
firmative defense when nonpayment is 
a constituent of, or essential to, the 
plaintiff's right of recovery. Smith v. 
State Bank, 61 Misc. 647, 114 N. Y. 
Supp. 56. (7) For example, when the 
action is to recover a general balance 
due the plaintiff by the defendant. 
Acharan v. Samuel Bros., 144 App. Div. 
182, 128 N. Y. Supp. 943; Jones v. El 
Eeno Mill & Blev. Co., 26 Okla. 796, 110 
Pac. 1071, Ann. Cas. 1912 B, 486. 

[c] That payment is pleaded, when 
unnecessary under the allegations of 
the complaint does not make it new 
matter. Shulman v. Brantley, 50 Ala. 
81. And see cases cited swpra, this 
note. 

6. XT. Bi — Columbia Digger Co. v. 
Eector, 215 Fed. 618. Ala.— Slaughter 
V. Martin, 9 Ala. App. 285, 63 So. 689. 
Ky. — Day v. Clarke's Admr., 1 A. K. 
Marsh. 521. Tex. — San Antonio & G. 
8. Const. Co. V. Davis (Tex. Civ. App.), 
48 S. W. 754. See also Euzeoski v. Wil- 
rodt (Tex. Civ. App.), 94 S. W. 142. 

[a] No inconsistency exists between 
the defenses of payment and set-oflf. 
Wheaton v. Nelson, 11 Gray (Mass.) 15. 

7. Krauss Engineering Co. v. Mc- 
Kinnon, 66 Misc. 181, 121 N. Y. Supp. 
396. See Uvalde Asphalt Pav. Co. v. 
National Trading Co., 135 App. Div. 
391, 120 N. Y. Supp. 11. 

8. Burke v. Thorne, 44 Barb. (N. 
Y.) 363. 

9. House V. Croft, 8 Mart. N. S. 
(La.) 704. 

10. 111.— Surface v. Chicago, M. & 
St. P. Ey. Co., 191 111. App. 261; Coul- 
ter V. Travelers' Protective Assn., 144 
111. App. 255. N. J — Axel v. Kraemer, 
75 N. J. L. 688, 70 Atl. 367. Va.— Whit- 
ley V. Booker Brick Co., 113 Va. 434, 
74 S. E. 160. W. Va.— Shuman v. Shu- 
man, 79 W. Va. 445, 91 S. E. 264; Shore 
V. Powell, 71 W. Va. 61, 76 S. E. 126. 
But see Arnold v. Cole, 42 W. Va. 663, 
26 S. E. 312. 

[a] Partial payment within the rule. 
Ky. — Craig V. Whips, 1 Dana 375. N. 3. 
Axel V. Kraemer, 75 N. J. L. 688, 70 

Vol. XXI 



246 



PAYMENT 



ment need not be TSpreeially pleaded, blit proof thereof was admissible 
tinder the general issue whether in debt," or assumpsit.^^ _ A special 
plea of payment was proper, however;^' but if made, it was not 
equivalent to the general issue.^* 

(II.) Utider Statutes. — In many jurisdictions, payment, as an af- 
femative defense, setting UiP new m-atlier,^" to be available ' must be 
•specially pleaded; neithea- evidence of payment," nor partial pay- 



Alil. 367. Va.— Whitley v. Booker Brict 
Co., 113 Va. '434, 74 S. E. 160. But see 
Shuman V. Shuman, 79 W. Va. 445, 91 
S. E. 264; Shore v. Powell, 71 W. Va. 
61, 76 S. E. 1'26; Guthrie v. Huating- 
ton Chair Co., 69 W. Va. '152, 71 S. B. 
14. 

11. Ey.' — Craig i). Whips, 1 Dana, 
375. N. Ji — -Axel v. Kraemer. 75 N. J. 
L. ess, 70 Atl. 367. N. Y.— l^cKyring 
V. ^ull, 16 N. Y. '297, 69 Am. Dec. 696. 
Va:— Biohmond City & S. E. By. Co. v. 
Johnson, 90 Va. 775, 20 S. E. 148. 

. [a] The leaBly imle .at commoii law 
required «, 'speoial plea of (payment in 
aissnmfpBit, btit not in ideht. McKyring 
V. Bull, 16 N. Y. 297, 69 Am. Deo. 696. 

12. U. 'S. — Jeffrey >v. Schlasinger, 
Hempst. 12, 13 Fed. Cas. No. 7,^53a. 
Ala. — MeMil'Iian <v. Wallaoe, 3 Stew. 
185. Oal.— Miokle -v. Heinleu, 92 Cal. 
596, '28 Bac. W4; Wetmore v. -San Fran- 
eisco, 44 'Cal. 294. CoHn.— Bipley v. 
•Fitch, 1 Eofrt 404. Del.— Cleaden v. 
Webb, 4 Hou«t. 473. lU. — Kennard v. 
Secor, 57 111. App. 415. Ina. — Maihon 
V. Gardner, 6 Blaekf . 319. Ky.— Wheat- 
ley V. Phelps, 3 Dana 302; Craig v. 
Whips, 1 Dana 375. Mich. — Brenfian 
V. Tietsort, "49 Miffh. 397, 13 N. W. 790. 
Miss. — AlHston D. Lindsey, 12 Smed. & 
M. '656. N. S.— Bewman v. Noyes, 12 
N. H. 302. N. J.— (Axel ». Kraemer, 75 
N. J. L. '688, 70 Atl. 367; Somerville V. 
Stewart, 48 N. J. L. 116, 3 Atl. 77. 
IT. T.— MoKyring v. Bull, 16 N. Y. 297, 
69 Am. Dee. 696. Tenn. — Siiblertt v. 
McLin, 10 Humph. 181. Vt. — Worthen 
.». Dici^y, 54 Vt. 277; Shaiw r. Moom, 
49 Vt. 68. 

See also 3 Stsandabd 'Pboc. 188, 212; 
Y Standard Pboc. 73. 

[a] Bttt p^^ment after the com- 
mencement of -the 'action had to be 
^specially pleaded. Pemigewaeset Bank 
V. Braofcett, 4 N. H. 557; Boyd v. 
Wieeks, 2 Deiiio '(N. Y.) 321, 43 Am. 
iJec. 749. But see McMillian ;«. Wal- 
lace, 3 Stew. (Ala.) 185; Moore t>. .Mc- 
Naiity, 1^2 N. C. 319, Where such pay- 
anenft ahown in miiitigatiem >of damttges. 

Vol. ZX-I 



13. — IT. S. — ^Dibble v. Duncan, 2 Mc- 
Lean 553, 7 Fed. Cas. No. 3, 880. HI. 
Betts V. Francis, 1 111. 165. iBd.— En- 
sey V. Cleveland, etc. E. Co., 10 Ind. 
178. Ky. — Wheatley v. Phelps, 3 Dana 
302; Craig v. Whips, 1 Dana 375. Md. 
I Barr v. Perry, 3 Gill 313. N. H.— Bow- 
man V. Noyes, 12 N. H. 302. Ore. 
Snodgrass v. Andross, 19 Ore. 236, 23 
Pac. 969. Pa. — Stillwell v. Eickards, 
152 Pa. 437, 25 Atl. 831; XJhler v. San- 
derson, 38 Pa. 128. Tenn. — Sublett v. 
I McLin, 10 Humph. 181. W. Va.^Doug- 
' lass V. Central Land Co., 12 W. Va. 502. 
[a] PartiaJ Payment. — Somerville 
V. Stewart, 48 N. J. L. 116, 3 Atl. 77; 
Britton v. Bishop, 11 Vt. 70. 

14. Cal. — See Prisch v. Caler, 21 Cal. 
71. Ky. — Wheatley v. Phelps. 3 Dana 
302. Can. — Hanington v. Bostwick, 31 
N. Bruns. 621. 

15. See supra, I, B, 1. 

16. V. S.— iKalloch v. Hoagland, 239 
Fed. 252, 152 C. C. A. 240. Ala.— Pol- 
lak V. Winter, 166 Ala. 255, 51 So. 998, 
52 So. 829, 53 So. 339, 139 Am. St. Eep, 
33 (dissenting opinion); Gulfport Per- 
tiliaer Co. v. Jones (Ala. App.),, 73 So. 
145. Ariz. — ^Eountree v. Clanton, 17 
Ariz. 107, 149 Pac. 58. Ark.— Williams 
V. Uzzell, 108 Ark. 241, 156 S. W. 843, 
Cal.— Hegler V. Eddy, 53 Cal. 597. Colo, 
Welles V. Colorado Nat. Life Assur, 
Co., 49 Colo. 508, 113 Pac. 524; Har- 
vey V. Denver & E. G. E. Co., 44 Colo, 
258, 99 Pac. 31, 130 Am. St. Eep. 120; 
Florence O. & E. Co. v. First Nat. Bank, 
38 Colo. 119, 88 Pac. 182. Comi.— More- 
house V. Throckmorton, 72 Conn. 449, 
44 Atl. 747. Ga. — ^Harris v. Dover, 18 

Ga. App. 320, .89 S. E. 351. Haw Pii- 

piilani «. Houghtailing, 11 Hawaii 100. 
Ind.— ^Baker v. Kistler, IS Ind. '63. la. 
Junge V. Bowman, 72 Iowa 648, "34 N. 
W. 612. cKan. — Kansas Nat. Bank v. 
Quinton, 57 Kan. 750, 48 Pac. 20; St. 
Louis, Ft.'S. & W. E. Co. v. Grove, 39 
Kan. 731, 18 Pac. 958; Stevena v. 
Thompson, 5 Kan. 805, distingvisii^g 
Marley >v. Smith, 4 Kan. 183. Ia. 
Da-vifl V. Basis' Syndic, 17 La. 259;; 



PAYMENT 



247 



ment,^^ can be given iundear general issue. This is rule even when the 
particular defense Telied upon is the presumption of payment arising 
from the lapse of time." On the other hand, when payment is not ' 
an affirmative defense, not new matter,^' it need not be specially 
pleaded ; it may be proved under a genea^al denial.^" Such is the rule 



EuUman t). Smith, 15 La. Ann. 670. 
Minn. — Marshall & Ilsley Bank v. 
Child, 76 Minn. 173, 78 N. W. 1048. , 
Miss. — Sivley v. Williamson, 112 Miss, i 
276, 72 So. 1008. Mo.^Ferguson u. Da- ! 
vidson, 158 Mo. 323, 59 B. W. 88; lEd- 
wards v. Giboney, 51 Mo. 129; People's 
Bank v. Stewart, 136 Mo. Aj)p. 24, 117 , 
S. W. 99. Neb.— Hudelson v. Vixst Nat. ; 
Bank, 51 Neb. 557, 71 JST. W. 304; Ash- j 
land Land & Live-Stock Co. v. May, 51 j 
Neb. 474, 71 N. W. 67; Mullen v. Mor- 
ris, 43 Neb. 596, 62 N. W. 74. N. Y. 
Conkling v. Weatherwax, 181 N. T. 258, , 
73 N. E. 1028; Patterson v. J. W. Gage ' 
Realty Co., 164 App. Div. 787, 150 N. 
Y. Supp. 215; Stumpf v. Cohen, 78 
Misc. 158, 137 N. Y. Supp. 905. N. I>. 
Tolerton & Warfield Co. v. Suit, 33 N. 
D. 263, 156 N. W. 939. OMo.— Lord v. 
Graveson, 4 Ohio Cir. Ct. (N. S.) 268; 
Flowers v. Slater, 2 Ohio Dec. (-Re- 
print) 336. Okla.— 'Standard Fashion 
Co. V. Joels, 159 Pae. 846. Ore.— Far- 
mers' & Traders' Nat. Bank v. Hun- 
ter, 35 Ore. 188, 57 Pac. 424; Clark v. 
Wiek, 25 Ore. 446, 36 Pac. 165; Benicia 
Agricultural Wka. v. 'Creighton, 21 Ore. 
495, 28 Pac. 775, 30 Pae. 676. Pa. 
Christiana Hdw. & Supply Co. v. Sigte, 
22 Pa. Dist. 647. S. C— Hopper v. 
Hopper, 61 S. C. 124, 39 S. E. 366. 
S. D. — Kimball State Bank i;. Harker, 
35 S. D. 276, 152 N. W. 100. Tex. 
Hudgins Produce Co. v. J. E. Beggs & 
Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 185 S. W. :3a9,; 
Garrett v. Grisham (Tex. Civ. App.), 
156 S. W. 505; Rutherford v. Gaines 
(Tex. Civ. App.), 118 S. W. 866. Vt. 
McDonald v. Place, 88 Vt. 80, 90 Atl. 
948. Wash. — Palmer v. Parker, 91 
Wash. 683, 158 Pac. 1017; Pickle v. An- 
derson, 62 Wash. 552, 114 Pac. 177. 
was.— Heber v. Heber'is Baftate, 139 
Wis. 472, 121 N. W. 328; Gardner v. 
Avery Mfg. Co., 117 Wis. 487, 94 N. 
W. 292. Can. — Gooderjnan v. Chal- 
mers, 1 TJ. C. Q. B. 172. 

See also 7 Standard Pboc. 95. 

[a] An apparent exception to the 
general rule that payment must be 
specially pleaded occurs when a case is 
referred, the pleadings then being 
treated as adsiptad (to -the facts found, 



when by so doing no new cause of ac- 
tion is hronght in. McDonald v. Place, 
88 Vt. 80, 90 Atl. 948. 

,[b] Payment as a defense to a 
.coiunteEclalm must be pleaded in the 
repHcBtjon oi reply. Mo. — Judy dJ. 
Duncan, 21 Mo. App. 548. N. Y.— Wil- 
cox V. Joslin, 56 Hun 645, 10 N. Y. 
■Supp. 342. Tex.— Wooley v. Bell (Tex. 
Civ. App.), 68 S; W. 71. 

17. N. Y.— McKyring v. Bull, 16 N. 
Y. 297, 69 Am. Dec. 696; Acharan v. 
Samuel Bros., 144 App. Div. 182, 128 N. 
Y. Supp. 943. S. C— Hopper v. Hop- 
per, 61 S. C. 124, 39 S. E. 366. Tex. 
Key V. Hickman (Tex. Civ. App.), 149 
S. W. 275. 

[a] Where Both Parties Allege 
Part Payment.' — Where a partial pay- 
ment is averred in the complaint, and 
payment of a smaller sum affirmatively 
pleaded in the answer, the defendant 
is entitled to avail himself of the plain- 
tiff's allegation. Mullen v. Morris, 43 
Neb. 596, 62 N. W. 74. 

18. Ky.— Tibbs' Heirs v. Clark, 5 
Mon. 526. N. J.— Gulick v. Loder, 13 
N. J. L. ©8, 23 Am. .Dec. 711. N. Y. 
House V. Carr, 125 App. Div. 89, 109 N. 
Y. Si^pp. 245. Tenn; — Stanley v. Mc- 
Kinzer, 7 Lea 454. 

[a] Payment must be averred di- 
rectiy, and the presumption relied upon 
as evidence to sustain that plea. House 
n. Cari;, 125 App. Div. 89, 109 N. Y. 
Supp. 245. But see Austin v. Wilson, 
46 Iowa 362 (holding that evidence of 
the running of the statute of limita- 
tions is not jroof of payment) ; Hep- 
burn 's cas^, 3 Bland (Md.) 95, holding 
presumption available without being 
specially pleaded in any form. 

[b] Available Under the Plea of 
Payment. — Wingett's Appeal, 122 Pa. 
486, 15 Atl. 863. 

19. As to nature of payment as da- 
fense, see supra, I, B, 1. 

20. Dak. — Brown v. Forbes, 6 Dak. 
273, 43 N. W. 93. N. Y.— Patterson v. 
J. W. Gage Realty Co., 164 App. Div. 
787, 150 N. Y. Supp. 215; Altman v. 
Bungay Co., 161 App. Div. 583, 146 N. 
Y. *Supp. 949; Acharan v. Samuel Bros., 
144 App. Div. 182, 128 N. Y. Supp. 943. 

Vol. XXI 



248 



PAYMENT 



in actions for a general balance due,^^ for merchandise,^^ for services 
rendered,^^ or on a promissory note.^* So also, when it is incumbent 
on the plaintiff to allege and prove a subsisting indebtedness at the 
time of the institution of the action, payment may be proved under 
a general denial ;^° the same is true when by proving his cause of 
action the plaintiff necessarily opens the door for proof of payment.^" 
Of course, it is not necessary to plead payment when it is admitted 
in the plaintiff's pleadings,^^ or when the defense is that the debt 
never existed.^* 

b. Form and Sufficiency. — (!•) in General. —A general plea of 
payment, as a rule, is sufScienti^' without specifying the time, place, 



N. I>. — Tolerton & Warfield Co. v. Suit, 
33 N. D. 283, 156 N. W. 939. Okla. 
Jones V. El Eeno Mill & Elev. Co., 26 
Okla. 796, 110 Pac. 1071, Ann. Gas. 
1912B, 486. S. D.— Kimball State 
Bank v. Harker, 35 S. D. 276, 152 N. W. 
100. 

[a] But payment made after action 
commenced must be specially pleaded. 
Oal.— Glascock v. Ashman, 52 Cal. 493. 
Fla.— Withers v. Sandlin, 36 Fla. 619, 
18- So. 856. N. M. — Bank of Commerce 
V. Broyles, 16 N. M. 414, 120 Pae. 670. 

21. Brown v. Forbes, 6 Dak. 273, 43 
N. W. 93. See Kimbell State Bank v. 
Harker, 35 S. D. 276, 152 N. "W. 100. 

[a] Reason Stated. — "When the 
complaint sets forth a balance in ex- 
cess of all payments, owing to the 
structure of the pleading, it is neces- 
sary for the plaintiff to prove the al- 
legation as made and this leaves the 
amount of the payments open to the 
defendant under a general denial." 
Conkling v. Weatherwax, 181 N. Y. 
258, 268, 73 N. E. 1028. 

[b] For Full Amount. — If the ac- 
tion is for the full amount of goods 
sold or work and labor performed, and 
not a general balance due, payment 
must be pleaded by defendant. See 
the following cases: Oolo. — Harvey v. 
Denver & E. G. E. Co., 44 Colo. 258, 99 
Pac. 31, 130 Am. St. Eep. 120. Mo. 
Ferguson v. Davidson, 158 Mo. 323, 59 
S. W. 88. Neb. — Ashland Land & Live 
Stock Co. V. May, 51 Neb. 474, 71 N. W. 
67; Lamb v. Thompson, 31 Neb. 448, 48 
N. W. 58; Clark v. Mullen, 16 Neb. 481, 
20 N. W. 642. 

22. Tolerton & Warfield Co. v. Suit, 
33 N. D. 283, 156 N. W. 939; Jones v. 
El Eeno Mill & Elev. Co., 26 Okla. 796, 
110 Pac. 1071, Ann. Cas. 1912B, 486. 

23. Ala.— Pollak v. Winter, 166 Ala. 
255, 51 So. 998, 52 So. 829, 53 So. 339, 

Vol, XXI 



139 Am. St. Eep. 33 (dissenting opin- 
ion); 188 Ala. 153, 66 So. 11, second 
appeal. Cal. — Brooks v. Ardizzone, 9 
Cal. App. 215, 98 Pac. 393. Colo.— Mott 
V. Baxter, 29 Colo. 418, 68 Pac. 220. 
N. M. — Cunningham v. Springer, 13 N. 
M. 259, 82 Pac. 232. N. Y.— White v. 
Smith, 46 N. Y. 418; Quin v. Lloyd, 41 
N. Y. 349. 

24. Parker «. Mayes, 85 S. C. 419, 
67 S. E. 559, 137 Am. St. Eep. 912; Key 
V. Jones (Tex. Civ. App.), 191 S. W. 
736. 

25. Mickle v. Heinlen, 92 Cal. 596, 
28 Pae. 784; Wetmore v. San Francisco, 
44 Cal. 294; Cunningham v. Springer, 
13 N. M. 259, 82 Pac. 232. 

26. Harder v. Continental P. & P. 
Card Co., 117 N. Y. Supp. 1001. 

[a] In an action on an assigned 
claim, when the evidence discloses that 
the assignment was made under cir- 
cumstances destructive of the plain- 
tiff's cause of action, that situation be- 
comes as available to the defendant as 
though a special plea to the same ef- 
fect had been interposed. Penwell v. 
Fliekinger, 46 Mont. 526, 129 Pae. 323. 

27. Thompson v. Baird (Tex. Civ. 
App.), 146 S. W. 354. . 

28. Marvin v. Mandell, 125 Mass. 
562. 

29. U. S. — Columbia Digger Co. v. 
Eector, 215 Fed. 618; Loveridge v. Lar- 
ned, 7 Fed. 294. Ark.— See Williams 
V. Uzzell, 108 Ark. 241, 156 S. W. 843. 
Cal.— Sprigg V. Barber, 122 Cal. 573, 55 
Pae. 419. Ind.— See Hollander v. 
Fletcher, 62 Ind. App. 149, 112 N. B. 
847. la. — Shawler v. Johnson, 52 Iowa 
473, 3 N. W. 604. Mass.— Goss v. Cal- 
kin's, 164 Mass. 546, 42 N. E. 96; Swett 
V. Southworth, 125 Mass. 417. Minn. 
Colter V. Greenhagen, 3 Minn. 126. 
Neb.— Crilly V. Euyle, 87 Neb. 367, 127 
N. W. 251; Keys v. Fink, 81 Neb. 571, 



PAYMENT 



249 



amount, the individual to -whom or by whom made, or other details,'" 
although in some jurisdictions, the plea should set out such details.'^ 
The circumstances may be such that they should be specifically set 
out in order to apprise the plaintiff of their nature and so avoid 
surprise.'" 

Partial payment may generally be shown under a general plea of pay- 
ment.'* But it is not improper to file a special plea setting out the 



116 N. W. 162. N. Y.— McLaughlin v. 
Webster, 141 N. Y. 76, 35 N. E. 1081; 
Pattison v. Taylor, 8 Barb. 250, 1 Code 
Eep. (N. S.) 174. 

[a] Necessity of direct allegation, 
see tJpton v. Paxton (Iowa), 29 N. W. 
809; Farmers' & Traders' Nat. Bank v. 
Hunter, 35 Ore. 188, 57 Pae. 424. 

30. Ind. — Johnson v. Breedlove, 104 
Ind. 521, 6 N. E. 906; Cranor v. Win- 
ters, 75 Ind. 301. La. — Holmes v. He- 
plaigne, 23 La. Ann. 238. Mass. — ^Wol- 
cott V. Smith, 15 Gray 537. Minn. 
Powers V. Bunnell, 121 Minn. 152, 140 
N. W. 748. Neb.— Keys v. Fink, 81 
Neb. 571, 116 N. W. 162. S. D.— Fall v. 
Johnson, 8 S. D. 163, 65 N. W. 909. 

[a] Evidence of payment to a third 
party is permissible under the general 
plea of payment which goes to show 
the legal extinguishment of the debt, 
such as payment to an assignor, to an 
officer holding an execution, or to some 
one on the request of the creditor. 
Shriner v. Lamborn, 12 Md. 170; Boyce 
V. Young's Exr., 3 Har. & McH. (Md.) 
84; Pall v. Johnson, 8 S. D. 163, 65 N. 
W. 909. 

31. Ariz. — Eountree v. Clanton, 17 
Ariz. 107, 149 Pac. 58. Ga.— Wortham 
V. Sinclair, 98 Ga. 173, 25 S. E. 414; 
O'Neal V. Phillips, 83 Ga. 556, 10 S. E. 
352; Lott V. Banks (Ga. App.), 94 S. 
E. 322; Groves v. Sexton, 5 Ga. App. 
160, 62 S. E. 731. Compa're Talbotton 
E. Co. V. Gibson, 106 Ga. 229, 32 S. E. 
151. Pa. — Hiestand v. Williamson, 128 
Pa. 122, 18 Atl. 427; MoCracken D. First 
Reformed Presby. Cong., Ill Pa. 106, 
2 Atl. 94. 

[a] Application of payments, when 
pleaded, must be set out in full. Na- 
tional Deposit Bank of Philadelphia v. 
Mawson, 46 Pa. Super. 85, to allege a 
payment "on account" is uncertain 
and indefinite as to time, amount, and 
manner of payment. 

[b] When the cause of action con- 
sists of various debits and credits, the 
affidavit of defense must definitely set 
out the amounts of the payments, which 



the defendant expects to assert and 
rely upon as a defense. Hallowell v. 
Paige, 46 Pa. Super. 108. As to the 
manner of averring payment in affida- 
vits of defense, see generally 1 Stand- 
ard Proc. 699. 

[c] Unless (1) it is impossible to do 
so and the defendant alleges a suffi- 
cient excuse for the omission. I. Ep- 
stein & Bro. Co. V. Thomas, 15 Ga. App. 
741, 84 S. E. 201. See also Atlantic 
Coast Line E. Co. v. Hart Lumber Co., 
2 Ga. App. 88, 58 S. E. 316; Com. v. 
Magee, 224 Pa. 168, 73 Atl. 347. It is 
not a sufficient excuse (2) to aver that 
defendant cannot make an allegation 
as to payment by deceased because of 
want of sufficient information, except 
that decedent paid his board monthly, 
as his habit was, and that he had am- 
ple money all the time to pay his debts, 
and was prompt to pay what he owed 
at maturity. Ginn v. Carithers, 14 Ga. 
App. 298, 80 S. E. 698. 

32. See Williams v. Uzzell, 108 Ark. 
241, 156 S. W. 843. 

[a] When the action is by a nom- 
inal plaintiff to the use of another, un- 
der a statute which considers the bene- 
ficiary the sole party to the record, a 
plea of payment must allege payment 
to the beneficial plaintiff, or to the per- 
son entitled thereto before the one 
holding the beneficial interest acquired 
his right. Mobile & M. Ey. Co. v. 
Jurey, 111 U. S. 584, 595, 4 Sup. Ct. 
566, 28 L. ed. 527. 

33. Ala.— McCurdy v. Middleton, 90 
Ala. 99, 7 So. 655. Conn.- Elm City 
Lumb. Co. V. Mackenzie, 77 Conn. 1, 58 
Atl. 10. lU.— Keyes v. Fuller, 9 111. 
App. 528. Md.— Eohr v. Anderson, 51 
Md. 205. Can — Gooderham v. Chal- 
mers, 1 U. C. Q. B. 172. 

But see Shuman v. Shuman, 79 W. 
Va. 445, 91 S. E. 264 (holding that par- 
tial payment must be pleaded specially 
or by way of account or bill of particu- 
lars) ; also Arnold v. Cole, 42 W. Va. 
663, 26 S. E. 312. 

Vol. XXI 



250 



PAYMENT 



defense of partial payment.^* 

A 1)111 of particulars, unless required bj fitaiute,^' need not .aceompa;ny 
ihe plea of payment.^' In a proper case, a bill of particulars may 
be directed, however.®^ 

(II.) Payment in Money or Its Equivalent. — (A.) In General — Former- 
ly, when a, claim of payment was based on a special agreement, it was 
necessary to plead the facts, a general plea of payment being in- 
sufficient,^' and this rule is' still adhered to in some jurisdictions;^* 
but the general rule is that such a plea is sufficient, whether the claim 
is based on the payment of rmoney or its egaiivalent, or a discharge 
by reason of a special agreement between the parties.*" 



34. Somerville v. Stewart, 48 N. J. 
L. 116, 3 Atl. 77. 

[a] In an action on an assigned 
claim, a plea by the defendant of pay- 
ment to -the assignor before the assign- 
ment of a certain amount, less than the 
sum claimed, is a plea of partial pay- 
ment and not a counterclaim. Clark v. 
Bell, 14 Cal. App. 326, 111 Pac. 1037. 

35. See the statutes, and Eussell v. 
Fabyan, 28 N. H. 543, 61 Am. Dee. 629, 
(covenant for rent); also the cases 
cited infra, this note. 

[a] Where the defense is payment 
of various items, it is sometimes ncjos- 
sary to attach an itemized account or 
bill of particulars thereof. Ariz. — Cheda 
V. Skinner, 6 Ariz. 196, 57 Pac. 64. 
Miss. — Miller v. Brooks, 4 Smed. & M. 
175; Webster v. Tiernan, 4 How. 392. 
Tex.— Grothans v. Witte, 72 Tex. 124, 
11 S. W. 1032; Hahn v. Broussard, 3 
Tex. Civ. App. 481, 23 S. W. 88. 

'[b] Application of Particular 
Items. — Sehroeter v. Bowdon, 53 Tex. 
Civ. App. 135, 115 S. W. 331. 

[c] Supplementing General Denial. 
Richmond City & S. P. Ey. Co. v. John- 
son, 90 Va. 775, 20 S. E. 148; Rice's 
Ext. v. Annatt'B Admr, 8 Gratt. {^ 
Va.) 557. 

36. Dal.— State *. Xobb's Admr., 3 

Harr. 421. lU Hays v. .Smtth, 4 111. 

427. Mass. — Wilby .v. Harris, 13 Mass. 
496. ]V[lss. — Price v. Sinclair, 5 Sm«d. 
& M. 254. Tex.— Able v. Lee, 6 Tex. 
427. W. Va— Lawson v. Zinn, 48 "W. 
Va. 312, 37 S. E. 612. 

Compare 4 Standard Pboo. .389, et 
■seq. 

37. Seely v. Breakwater Ce., 144 N. 
T. Supp. 771. 

38. McKyring v. Bull, 16 N. T. 297, 
69 Am. Dec; 696; Uvalde Asphalt P., 
Co. V. National Trading Co., 135 App. 
Div. 391, 120 N. Y. Supp. 11;. Morley 
V. Culverwell, 7 Mees. & W. (Eng.) 174. 

Vol. XSX 



39. Mass.— Ulsch v. Muller, 143 
Mass. 579, 9 N. E. 736; Wheaton v. 
Nelson, 11 Gray 15. But see Howe v. 
Mackay, 5 Pick. 44, holding that un- 
der a general plea of payment in debt 
on a judgment it may be shown that 
the judgment had been paid by trans- 
fer of real estate of equal value. Sao. 
People's Bank v. Stewart, 136 Mo. App. 
24, 117 S. W. 99, 152 Mo. App. 314, 133 
6. W. 70; Moore v. Keniek, 95 Mo. App. 
•202, 08 S. W. 936; Rider v. Culp, 68 
Mo. App. 527. But s«e White v. Black, 
115 Mo. App. 28, 90 S. W. 1153. Pa. 
Lovegrove v. Christman, 164 Pa. 39Q, 

30 AH. 385; Steiner v. Erie D. S. & 
Loan Co., 98 Pa. 591; Covely v. Fox, 
11 Pa. 171. Tex.- Able v. Lee, 6 Tex. 
427. 

[a] To justice court practice the 
rule is not applicable. Rider v. Culp, 
'68 Mo. App. 527. 

[b] An agreement by which the 
acceptance of certain wood operated 
as a satisfaction of the contract, and 
the delivery and receipt of the wood 
by the plaintiff under this agreement, 
are substantive facts, which should 
Tie set forth in the answer. Ulsch v. 
Muller, 143 Mass. 379, 9 N. E. 736. 

[c] The substantial facts of the 
accord and satisfaction should be al- 
leged. People's Bank v. Stewart, 136 
Mo. App. 24, 117 S. W. 99, 152 Mo. 
App. 314, 133 8. W. 70; Moore v. Ren- 
ick, 95 Mo. App. 202, 68 S. W. 936. See 
also Carroll v. Weaver, 65 Conn. 76, 

31 Atl. 489; Salomon v. Pioneer Go-op. 
Co., 21 Fla. 374, 58 Am. Rep. 667. 

40. Ark. — Dawson v. Owen, 78 Ark. 
93, 93 S. W. 067; Bush «. Sproat, 43 
Ark. 416. €onn — Morehouse v. North- 
rop, 33 Conn. 380, 89 Am. Dec. 211. Del 
Mitchell V. Conrad, 1 Marv. 417, 41 Atl! 
77. Ind. — Wolcott v. Ensign, 53 Ind. 
70; Hart v. Crawford, 41 lud. 197. la. 
State Bank of Tabor v. Kelly, 109 Iowa 



PAYMENT 



251 



(B.) Alleging Acceptance op Note, Payment op- Check, etc. Where 

the declaration or complaint avers that the debt was paid with a 
certain note, it must also aver that the note was accepted as pay- 
ment.*i If payment by check is alleged, it has been held that pay- 
ment thereof should also be averred.*^ So also, where an order on 
a third party,*' or services rendered,** is averred as payment, it must 
be averred that the same were accepted as such. 

c. Construction, Operation and Effect. — The construction of a plea 
of payment follows, as a general rule, the ordinary rules of plead- 
ing.*'* It does not put in issue the debtor's original liability,*^ but 
admits the material allegations of plaintiff's complaint,*' and gives 
the privilege of qjpeiiing and closing to the party pleading it, throw- 
ing upon him the burden of proof.** The affirmative allegation of 



544, 80 N. W. 520. Ky. — Whittington 
V. Roberts, 4 Mon. 173. laa. — Mandell 
V. Stephens, 9 Eob. 491. liilinn. — Thomp- 
son-Houston Elee. Co. -v. Palmer, 52 
Minn. 174, 53 N. W. 1137, 38 Am. St. 
Eep. 536. IS'eb.— rHapgDod Plow Co. v. 
Martin, 16 Neb. 2-7, 19 N. W. 512. N. Y. 
McLaughlin v. Webster, 141 N. Y. 76, 
35 N. E. 1081 (provision in will) ; New- 
comb V. La Eoe, 160 App. Div. 819, 146 
N. Y. Supp. 133; Van Ness v. Eansom, 
83 Misc. 178, 144 N. Y. Supp. 420. :S. C. 
Sullivan & Co. v. Sulliva^^ 20 S. C. 509. 
Utah.— Heath v. White, 3 Utah 474, 24 
Pac. 762. Wa^.^Edmunas -v. Black, 
13 Wash. 490, 43 Pae. 330. 

41. Blunt V. Williams, 27 Ark. 374; 
Berlin Iron Bridge Co. iv. Bonta, 180 
Pa. 448, 36 Atl. 867; Philadelphia v. 
Stewart, 9 Pa. Dist. :22i8. See also 
Blum V. Jurick, 83 Misc. 116, 144 N. Y. 
Supp. 822; Shattuck v. Buck, 77 Misc. 
95, 13B N. Y. Supp. 103. 

42. Meltznar v. Sehwarz, 19 Pa. 
Dist. 44. See also Strong v. Stevens, 4 
Duer (N. Y.) 668, holding that an al- 
legation of payment by cheek ^wiiioh 
is still outBtanddng is insufSeifent. 

43. Brandt v. Thitrber & Co., 1 
Wlhite & W. Civ. 'das. (Tex.)., §640. 

44. Corbett v. Hughes, 75 lowia 281, 
39 N. W. 500. 

45. See the title ' 'iCtonstmctioin and 
Theory of Pleadings." 

[a] JPaxticiilar statements in a 
plea of payment will control llie gen- 
eral. Hewitt V. Poweis, 84 'Ind. 295. 

i6. ;Lo0se <». Loose, 36 JPa. 538. 

47. v. S. — Murphy i). "SfytA, Hempst. 
221, 17 Fed. Cas. No. 9,94Tb. ->Ark. 
Day ». Lafferty, 4 A«k. 430. Cal.— Caul- 
field •». Sanders, 17 Gal. 969. lOolo. 
Mohr V. iBarnes, 4 'Oolo. 300. iEUa — iRa- 
ney v. Baron, 1 Ma, 327. HI.— Witter 



V. McNiel, 4 111. 433. Ind.— Pattison v. 
Shaw, 82 Ind. 32. Ky.— See Harris v. 
Merz A. I. Wks., 82 Ky. 200. I.a. 
Jones V. Bishop, 12 La. 397; Eobinson 
V. Landrum, 10 La. Ann. 539. N. D. 
Lokken ii. Miller, 9 N. D. 512, 84 N. 
W. 368. Pa.— Long v. Rhoads, 126 Pa. 
378, 17 Atl. 622. Tenn. — Connecticut 
Mut. L. Ins. Co. V. Dunscomb, 108 Tenn. 
724, 69 8. W. 345, 91 Am., St. Eep. 769, 
58 L. R. A. 694. Tex. — Matossy v. 
Frosh, 9 Tex. 610. 

[a] Where the demand is unliqul- 
I dated, the plea does not admit plain- 
tiff's right to recover the full amount 
of his demand. Haley v. Caller, Minor 
(Ala.) 63. 

48. Ala.— Pearce v. Walker, 103 Ala. 
250, 15 So. 568. Ark.- Blass v. Law- 
horn, 64 Ark. 466, 42 S. W. 1068. Oal. 
Melone v. Buffino, 129 Cal. 514, 62 Pac. 
93, 79 Am. St. Rep. 127. Colo — Thomas 
V. Carey, 26 Colo. 485, 58 Pac. 1093. 
Fla. — Interinational Harvester Co. v. 
Smith, 51 Pla. 220, 40 So. 840. Ga. 
Lanier t). Huguley, 91 Ga. 791, 18 S. 
E. 39. 111.— Ross V. Skinner, 107 111. 
App. 579. la. — ^^Walker v. Russell, 73 
Iowa 340, 35 N. W. 443. Kan.— Na- 
tional Bank *. Hellyer, 53 Kan. 695, 37 
Pac. 130, 42 Am. St. Eep. 316. Ky. 
Harris v. Merz A. I. Wks., 62 Ky. 200. 
La. — Diggs, Hobson & Co. v. Parish, 18 
La. 6. Me. — Witherell v. Swan, 32 Me. 
247. Mlcb. — Doolittle v. Gavigan, 74 
Mich 11, 41 N. W. 846. Mo.— Griffith 
V. Creighton, 61 Mo. App. 1, 1 Mo. App. 
Eep. 295. Neb.— Wessel v. Bishop, 76 
Neb. 74, 107 N. W. 220. N. H.— Smith 
V. iLeiwiston Steam Mill, 66 N. H. 613, 
.34 Atl. 153. N. J.— iSmith's Exrs. v. 
Burnet, 17 N. J. Eq. 40. N. Y.— Dean 
r. Pitts, 30 Johns. 35. N. C. — Vaughan 
n. Lewellyn, 94 N. C. 472. N. D.— Sat- 

Vol. XXI 



252 



PAYMENT 



payment by the defendant, in a case where the plaintiff is bound to 
allege non-payment, merely serves as notice that the issue of non- 
payment is to be raised.*® The effect of a plea of payment before suit 
brought, if proved, is to effectually bar the plaintiff's recovery j^" but 
if the plea is payment after the commencement of the action, the 
plaintiff is entitled to costs.^^ Plaintiff, by joining issue on the plea 
of part payment without taking judgment for the part unanswered, 
does not discontinue his action; and if the issue is resolved in his 
favor, he is entitled to a judgment for the amount of his demand."'' 
C. Replication or Reply."' — A replication or reply to a defense 
of payment as a plea of new matter may,"* or may not,"" be necessary, 
depending upon the rules of pleading in the various jurisdictions. 
No reply, of course, is necessary when non-payment is an essential 
allegation in the complaint and issue is joined with a general denial,"* 
or when in such case issue is joined with a plea of payment which is 
in effect a general denial;"'' but the fact that the plaintiff has 
pleaded non-payment does not meet the necessity of replying to the 



terlund v. Beal, 12 N. D. 122, 95 N. W. 
518. Pa. — North Pennsylvania E. Co. 
V. Adams, 54 Pa. 94, 93 Am. Dee. 677. 
S. 0. — Adger & Co. v. Pringle, 11 S. C. 
527. Tex. — Tinsley v. Mcllhenny, 30 
Tex. Civ. App. 352, 70 S. W. 793. Vt. 
Smith V. Woodworth, 43 Vt. 39. Va. 
Moore v. Tate, 22 Gratt. (63 Va.) 351. 
Wis. — Meyer v. Hafemeister, 119 Wis. 
539, 97 N. W. 165, 100 Am. St. Eep. 900. 

As to right to open and close gen- 
erally, see the title "Opening and 
Closing. ' ' 

As to burden of proof on the plea of 
payment generally, see 9 Ency. of Ev. 
700. 

49. Smith v. State Bank, 61 Mxse. 
647, 114 N. Y. Supp. 56. 

50. Slaughter v. Martin, 9 Ala. App. 
285, 63 So. 689. 

51. Slaughter v. Martin, 9 Ala. App. 
285, 63 So. 689. 

52. Beebe v. Hershy, 7 Ark. 428; 
Beebe v. Sutton, 7 Ark. 405. 

Effect upon action and subsequent 
pleading by failing to take judgment 
for a part of demand when entitled to 
it generally, see the title "Keplica- 
tlon and Beply." 

53. See generally the title "Eeplt 
cation and Seply." 

54. Ind. — Hubler v. PuUen, 9 Ind. 
273, 68 Am. Dec. 620. Miss. — Bushing 
V. Key, 4 Smed. & M. 191. Mo.— Hut- 
chison V. Patrick, 3 Mo. 65; Manifee 
V. D'Lashmutt, 1 Mo. 258; Cordner v. 
Boberts, 58 Mo. App. 440. Ohio. 
Knauber v. Wunder, 5 Ohio Dee. (Be- 
print) 516, 6 Am. L. Bee. 366. Ore. 

Vol. XXI 



Minard v. McBee, 29 Ore. 225, 44 Pac. 
491; Benieia Agricultural Wks. v. 
Creighton, 21 Ore. 495, 28 Pac. 775, 30 
Pac. 676. Pa. — See Beale v. Buchanan, 
9 Pa. 123. 

[a] Acceptance of payment under 
duress must be pleaded in the replica- 
tion. Smith V. Cottrel, 8 Baxt. (Tenn.1 
62. 

55. la. — Kirk v. Woodbury, 55 Iowa 
190, 7 N. W. 498. Md.— MeCart v. Eeg- 
ester, 68 Md. 429, 13 Atl. 361. N. Y. 
Burke v. Thome, 44 Barb. 363; Bracket 
V. Wilkinson, 13 How. Pr. 102; Eeilay 
V. Thomas, 11 How. Pr. 266. W. Va. 
Kinsley v. Monongalia County Court, 
31 W. Va. 464, 7 S. E. 445; Wellsburg 
First Nat. Bank v. Kimberlands, 16 W. 
Va. 555; Hickman v. Painter, 11 W. Va. 
386. 

56. la.— Burton v. HUl, 4 G. Gr. 379. 
Ky. — Logan County Nat. Bank v. Barc- 
lay, 104 Ky. 97, 46 S. W. 675; Ermert 
V. Dietz, 19 Ky. L. Eep. 1639, 44 S. W. 
138. Minn.— McArdle v. McArdle, 12 
Minn. 98. 

57. Frisch v. Caler, 21 Cal. 71; Van 
Gieson v. Van Gieson, 12 Barb. (N. Y.) 
520. 

[a] When Plea of Payment Not 
New Matter. — That a replication is 
necessary to negative a plea of new 
matter has no application to an un- 
necessary plea of payment, for when it 
is necessary to allege nonpayment in 
the complaint; a plea of payment is 
simply a denial and not an allegation 
of new matter. Frisch v. Caler, 21 Gal. 
71. 



PAYMENT 



253 



defendant's plea of payment when it is considered an affirmative de- 
fense of new matter.** 

D. Objections to Pi-eading. — As a rule, a plea of payment is not 
subject to a general demurrer;"' but when defective, it may be ob- 
jected to in some jurisdictions by a special demurrer,'" or by motion 
to make more definite and certain.'^ 

II. TRIAL. — A. In General. — The same general rules govern- 
ing the trial of all civil cases obtain when payment is an issue.'"' 

B. Vakunce.*' — As a general rule, payment must be proved as 
alleged.'* A plea of payment is not proved by evidence of tender," 
set-off," counterclaim," or discharge." An accord and satisfaction 
may in some jurisdictions,'^ but not in other jurisdictions,'" be shown 



58. Benicia Agricultural Wks. ■». 
Creighton, 21 Ore. 495, 28 Pac. 775, 30 
Pac. 676. 

59. ni. — Sherman v. Gassett, 9 111. 
521. Ind. — Epperson v. Hostetter, 95 
Ind. 583; Hart v. Crawford, 41 Ind. 197. 
S. o. — Buist V. ritzsimons, 44 S. C. 130, 
21 S. E. 610. 

Grounds of demurrer generally, see 
6 Standabd Peoc. 888, et seq. 

60. O'Neil «. Phillips, 83 Ga. 556, 
10 S. E. 352. See also Sherman v. Gas- 
sett, 9 HI. 521. 

61. Del. — Tyre v. Mulvena, 2 Marv. 
295, 43 Atl. 172. Ind.— Epperson v. 
Hostetter, 95 Ind. 583; Hart v. Craw- 
ford, 41 Ind. 197. Minn. — Powers v. 
Bunnell, 121 Minn. 152, 140 N. W. 748. 
Neb.— CrUly v. Euyle, 87 Neb. 367, 127 
N. W. 251. N. T. — ^Farmers' & Citi- 
zens' Bank v. Sherman, 33 N. Y. 69, 
affirming 6 Bosw. 181. Ohio. — Lewis v. 
Smith, 2 Disney 434, 13 Ohio Dec. 266. 

[a] Time of payment omitted. Baer 
V. Christian, 83 Ga. 322, 9 S. E. 790. 

62. See generally the title "Trial." 

63. See generally the title "Vari- 
ance and Failure oif Proof." 

64. Ala. — TuBkaloosa Cotton - Seed 
Oil Co. V. Perry, 85 Ala. 158, 4 So. 635; 
Gilmer v. Wallace, 75 Ala. 220. Ind. 
See Braden v. Lemmon, 127 Ind. 9, 26 
N. E. 476. la.— Hoddy v. Osborn, 9 
Iowa 517. La. — Gaude v. Gaude, 28 La. 
Ann. 181. Md.— Staley v. Thomas, 68 
Md. 439, 13 Atl. 53. Mass.— Canfield 
V. Miller, 13 Gray 274; Wheaton i;.- Nel- 
son, 11 Gray 15. Mich.— Judd v. Bur- 
ton, 51 Mich. 74, 16 N. W. 237. Minn. 
First Nat. Bank of Shakopee v. Strait, 
71 Minn. 69, 73 N. W. 645. N. Y. 
Mann v. Morewood, 5 Sandf. 557; Bon- 
ney v. Seeley, 2 Wend. 481. Ohio. 
Brown v. Ginn, 39 Ohio Cir. Ct. 660, 10 
Ohio Cir, Dec. 538. S. D.— Peter Min- 
tener Lumber Co. v. Harvey, 27 S. D. 



624, 132 N. W. 252. Bng.— Palmer v. 
Costerton, 4 Q. B. 525, 45 E. C. L. 525, 
114 Eng. Eeprint 996. 

[a] Proof of payment in money or 
by check has been denied under an 
allegation of payment by note. Can- 
field V. Miller, 13 Gray (Mass.) 274. 
See Talbotton E. Co. ■». Gibson, 106 
Ga. 229, 32 S. E. 151. 

[b] When the defendant sets up an 
itemized list of payments, and issue it 
joined thereon, he is precluded from 
showing other payments outside of 
those set out, unless he amends his 
pleading. Lapham v. Kansas & T. Oil, 
Gas & Pipe Line Co., 87 Kan. 65, 123 
Pac. 863, Ann. Cas. 191 3D, 813. 

[c] Where the date of payment is 
pleaded, evidence of payment at a 
time subsequent thereto is not admis- 
sible. Denham v. Crowell, 1 N. J. L. 
467. 

[d] But where payment at a par- 
ticular place is averred, proof of pay- 
ment at a different place may be shown. 
Brown v. Gooden, 16 Ind. 444. 

65. Clark v. Mullenix, 11 Ind. 532. 

66. Williams v. Uzzell, 108 Ark. 241, 
156 S. W. 843; Eowland v. Blaksley, 1 
Q. B. 403, 2 G. & D. 734, 6 Jur. 732, 11 
L. J. Q. B. 279, 41 B. C. L. 599, 113 
Eng. Eeprint 1187. 

[a] Based on Agreement With 
Plaintiff's Agent. — Williams v. Uzzell, 
108 Ark. 241, 156 S. W. 843. 

67. Wagener & Co. v. Mars, 20 S. C. 
533. 

68. State v. Beading's Terre-Ten- 
ants, 1 Harr. (Del.) 23. 

69. Ark. — Turner v. Huggins, 14 
Ark. 21. Conn. — McNerney v. Barnes, 
77 Conn. 155, 58 Atl. 714. Ind.— Bra- 
den V. Lemmon, 127 Ind. 9, 26 N. E. 
476. Vt.— Hadley v. Boro, 62 Vt. 285, 
19 Atl. 476. 

70. Hardey v. Coe, 5 Gill (Md.) 189. 

Vol. XXI 



254 



PAYMENT 



under a general plea of payment.. 

C. Questions of Law and Fact." — The question of paymemt,'^ 
and whether the same was volumtariljr mad^^^^ is for the court A/hen 
the facts are not in dispute. But under confficting evidence, it is. fer 
the jury to determine the fact of payment in whole/* or in part," 
it being within their province to draw proper infereneea and pre- 
sumptions in respect thereto.''" It is likewise for the jury, under dis- 
puted facts, to pronounce as to the medium of payment;" the ap- 
plication or appropriation of payments;" and. as to whether a note," 



71. See generally the title "Prov- 
ince of Judge and Jury." 

72. Fidelity Title &, Trust Co. v. 
Chapman, 226 Pa. 312, 75 Atl. 428; 
Richards v. Walp, 221 Pa. 412, 70 Atl. 
815. 

73. Eslow V. City of Albion, 153 
Mich. 720, 117 N. "W. 328, 22 L. E. A. 
(N. S.) 872. 

74. Ala.— Winter v. PoUak, 188 Ala. 
153, 66 So. 11; 166 Ala. 255, 51 So. 998, 
52 So. 829, 53 So. 339, 139 Am. St. Rep. 
33, dissenting opinion. Ariz. — Albert 
Steinf-eld & Co. v. Wing Wong, 14 Ariz. 
336, 128 Pae. 354. Ark. — Lee Wilson & 
Co. V. Morgan, 121 Ark. 633, 180 S. W. 
469; Fidelity Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. 
Click, 93 Ark. 162, 124 S. W. 764. CaJ. 
Light V. Stevens, 159 Cal. 288, 113 Pac. 
659; Cowan v. Abbott, 92 Cal. 100, 28 
Pac. 213. DeL — Hudson v. Williams, 6 
Penne. 550, 72 Atl. 985. Haw.— Pratt 
V. Ahin, 16 Hawaii 150. Ind. — Louden 
V. Birt, 4 Ind. 566. Kan. — Tennison v. 
Piatt, 50 Kan. 631, 32 Pac. 369. Ky. 
Williamson v. McGinnis, 11 B. Mon. 74, 
52 Am. Dec. 561. Mich. — Linsell v. 
Linsell, 138 Mich. 64, 100 N. W. 1009. 
K". Y. — Fulton Grain & M. Co. v. AngUm, 
34 App. Div. 164, 54 N. Y. Supp. 632; 
Thompson v. Welde, 10 App. Div. 125, 
41 N. Y. Supp. 819; Clark v. Mt. Gilead 
Baptist Church, 156 N. Y. Supp. 305. 
N. 0.— Model Mill Co. v.. Webb, 164 N. 
C. 87, 80 S. E. 232. Pa.— Fidelity Title & 
Trust Co. V. Chapman, 226 Pa. 312, 75 
Atl. 428; Reynolds v. Richards, 14 Pa. 
205; Ransom v. Crawford, 44 Pa. Super. 
592. S. C. — Simons' Exrs. v. Walter's 
Exr., 1 McCord 97. Tex. — Buckley v. 
Runge, 57 Tex. Civ. App. 322, 122 S. 
W. 596. Wis. — Twohy Merc. Co. v. 
McDonald's Estate, 108 Wis. 21, 83 N. 
W. 1107. 

75. Barrett v. Sipp, 50 Ind. App. 
304, 98 N. E. 310. 

76. Ky. — Waters v. Waters> 1 Mete. 
519; Shields v. Pringle, 2 Bibb 387. 
N. Y. — Macaulay v. Palmer, 125 N. Y. 

Vol. XXI 



742, 26 N. E. 912; Hall V. Roberts, 63 
Hun 473, 18 Is". Y. Supp. 480, 45 N. Y. 
St. 35C. KT. C— Williams v. Peal, 20 
N. C. 609. Pa.— O'Hara v. Corr, 210 
Pa. 341, 59 Atl. 1099; Lee v. Newell, 107 
Pa. 283. Tenn. — Lyon v. Guild, 5 
Heisk. 175. Vt.— Kimball v. Ives,, 17 
Vt. 430. 

i [a] Inferences of continued indebt- 
edness from partial payment may be 
drawn by the jury. Broadway v. 
Groenendyke, 153 Ind. 508, 55 N. E. 
434; Mozihgo V. Ross, 150 Ind. 688, 50 
N. E. 867, 65 Am. St. Rep. 387, 41 L. 
R. A. 612; Barrett v. Sipp, 50 Ind. App. 
304, 98 N. E. 310. 

[b] Length of time necessary to 
raise the presumption of payment, when 
not settled by statute or otherwise, is 
for the jury's consideration. Dox v. 
Postmaster - General, 1 Pet. (U. S.) 
318, 320, 7 L. ed. 160. 

77. B^ich. — Just v. Porter, 64 Mich. 
565, 31 N". W. 444. N". Y.— Hayden v. 
Pierce, 144 N. Y. 512, 39 N. E. 638, 
aprming 71 Hun 593, 25 N. Y. Supp. 
55. Ohio. — Ghase v. Brundage,, 58 Ohio 
St. 517, 51 N. E. 31. Tenn.— Union 
Bank v. Smiser, 1 Sneed 501. 

78. Cal.— Clarke v. Scott, 45 Cal. 86, 
Ga. — Phillips v. McGuire, 73 6a. 517. 
m.— Drake v. Lux,, 233 HI. 522, 84 N. 
E. 693., la.— Bishop v. Hart, 114 Iowa 
96, 86 N. W. 218. Md.— Fowke ®. 
Bowie, 4 Har. & J. 566. Mo. — Wear 
Bros. V. Schmelzer, 92 Mo. App. 314; 
Dick Bros. Q. Brew. Co. v. Finnell, 39 
Mo. App. 276. N. Y.— Reich v. Reich, 
6 Misc. 628, 27 N. Y. Sup.p. 137. Pa. 
Brown v. Burr, 160 Pa. 458,^ 28 Atl. 828. 
S. C. — Heyward- Williams Co. v. Zeigler, 
106 a C. 425, 91 S.. E. 298. 

79. TJ. S — Lyman «. Bank of United 
States, 12 How. 225, 13 L. ed. 965; 
Leschen. & Sons Rope Co. v. Mayflower 
Gold Min. Co., 173 Fed. 855, 97 C. C. A. 
465, 35 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1. Ala.— Keel 
V. Larkin, 72 Ala. 493; Myatts v. Bell, 
41 Ala. 222. Fla. — Salomon v. Pioneer 



PAYMENT 



255 



bill,'" che€k,«i or order^^ was taken in payment of the debt, or as a 
renewal, or simply as evidence of the debt, or as collateral security, 
or conditional p^ymen't. 

D. Instructions.^' — In accordance with the general rule, the 
court's charge should be in harmony with the law applicable to the 
case,^* relating, e. ff., to the application, of payments,^^ the burden 
of proving payment,*^ presumption of payment,*' what does or does 



Co-op. Co., 21- Fla. 374, 5» Am, Eep. 
667. Gfa. — Standard Cooperaige Co-, v. 
O'Neill, 146 Ga. 235, 91 S, E. 82. HL 
Archibald v. Argall, 53 in. 307;, Crab- 
tree V. Eowand, 33 HI. 421; RayfieM v. 
Tincher, 180 111. App. 454. Kan. 
Webb V. Natioaal Bani, 67 Kan. 62, 72 
Pac. 520. Ky. — Bullen v. McGtiVlicuddy,, 
2 Dana 90. Mass. — "Vieliary v. Eitchie, 
207 Mass. 318, 93 N. E, 578; Spaoner v. 
Eoberta, 180 Mass. 191, 62 K. E. 4; 
Casey v. Weaver, 141 Maas. 280, 6 N. E. 
372. Mica. — Bond v. McMahon, 94 
Mich. 557, 54 N. W. 281 ; Crad^ock v. 
Dwight, 85 Mieh. 587, 48- IST. W. 644, 
IVtuui. — Combinatio-n Steel & Iron. Co. 
V. St. Paul City Ey. Co., 47 Minn. 207, 
49 N. W. 744. Miss. — Keerl v. Bridg- 
ers, 10 Smed. & M. 612. Ma.— The 
Charlotte v. Hammond, 9 Mo. 59,. 42 
Am. Dee. 536; State ex rel. Wa,ggoner 
V. Lichtman-Goodman & Co.„ 131 Ho. 
App. 65, 109 S. W. 819. N. K.— Fos- 
ter V. Hill, 36 N. H. 526. N. Y.— Tobey 
V. Barber, 5 Johns. 68, 4 Am. Dec. 326. 
Okla. — Ohio Cultivator Co, v. Dunkin, 
168 Pae. 1002. Fa.— E'amlaGt v. Wolf, 
178 Pa. 356, 35 Atl. 879; Cake v. First. 
Nat. Bank of Lebanon, 86 Pa. 303. 
Teim. — Union Bank of Swiser,, 1 Sneed 
501. W. Va.— Bowyer v. Knapp,, 15 W. 
Va. 277. Wis.— Grubbe v. Pierce, 156 
Wis. 29, 145 N. W. 207, Ann. Cas. 1915- 
C, 1199, 51 L. E. A. (N. S.) 358. 

[aj Note of a TfMrd Party. — la.. 
TJ'pton If. Paxton, 72 Iowa 295, 33 N, W. 
773. Mass. — Quimby v. Durgin, 148 
Mass. 104, 19 N. E. 14, 1 L. E. A. 514. 
Miss — Crow V. Burgin, 38 So. 625. N". H. 
Wilson V. Hansoa, 2& N. H, 3^5. N. Y. 
Johnson v. Weed, 9f Johns. 3T0, & Am. 
Dec. 279. Pa. — Cridland v. Stevens^ 9 
Pa. Super. 41. 

80. Mich, — Graddeek v. Dwigh*, 85 
Mieh. 587, 48 N. W. 644. N. Y.— Hall 
V. Stevens, 40 Hun 578, 2 N. T. St. SOS, 
reversed on other grounds, 116 N. Y. 
201, 22 N. E. 374, 5 L. E. A. 802. Pa. 
Jones V. Johnson, 3 Watts & S. 2.76^ 38 
Am. Dec. 760. 
' \ 81. Cal. — Western Pac. Land Co. v. 
Wilson, 19 Cal. App. 338, 125 Pae. 1076. 



Minn. — Isaefcson v. Lovell, 115 Minn. 
481, 132 N. W. 918; Goodall v. Norton, 
88 Minn. I, 92 N. W. 445. Pa.— Holmes 
V, Briggs,, 131 Pa. 233, 18 Atl. 928, 17 
Am. St. Eep., 804; Lingenfelter v. Wil- 
liams, 7 Sad. 70, 9 Atl. 653. R. I.— Na- 
tfonal Park Bank v. Levy, 17 E. I. 746, 
24 Atl. 777, 19 L. R. A. 475. Va. 
Blair v. Wilson, 28 Gratt. (69 Va.) 165. 
Wash. — M-eg-rath v. Gilmore, 10 Wash. 
339, 80 Pac. 131. 

82. Bond v. McMahon, 94 Mich. 557, 
54 N. W. 281; Bank of Iron Eiver v. 
Board of School Directors, 91 Wis. 596, 
65 N. W. 368. 

83. See generally the title "In- 
stni'Ctiens. '' 

8i. See generally 13 Standard 
Peoc. 771. 

85. Ala.— Ttirrentine v. Grigsby, 118 
Ala- 380,. 23 So. 666; Boyd v. Jones, 96 
Ala. 305, 11 So. 405, 38 Am. St. Eep. 
lOff. Cal,— Ray v. Borgfeldt,. 169 Cal. 
253,. 146 Pac. 679; Light v. Stevens, 159 
Cal. 288, 113 Pac. 659. Ga.— Lawton v. 
BKtch, 83 Ga. 663, 10 S. E. 353. Til. 
Snell V. Cottingham, 72 111. 124. la. 
Marshall Dental Mfg. Co. v. Harkensen, 
84 Iowa 117', 50 N. W. 559. Ky.— Ditto 
V. Hopkins, 164 Ky, 412, 175 8. W. 658; 
Hoskins ' Admr. v. Brown, 27 Ky. L. Eep. 
216; 84 S. W. 767. Mtes.— Ives v. 
F'armerS' Bank, 2 Allen 236. Tex. 
Eeed «. Corry (Tex. Civ. App.), 61 S. 
W; 157. Vt,— Lapham v. Kelly, 35 Vt. 
195. 

86. 111'.— Weakley v. MizelT, 193 111. 
App. 494; Lasswell v. Gahan, 122 III. 
App. 513. Miss. — Crow v. Burgin, 38 
Sa-. 625.. Pa. — Padige- »; Paiige-, 53 Pa. 

■ Super 311. 

87. Ga.— Patterson v. Campbell, 136 Ga. 
664, 71 S. E. 1117. Ky.— Stockton's 
AAmr. v. Johnsan, 6 B. Mon. 408. Mo. 
Moore o, Eenick, 95 Mo. App. 202, 68 
S. W. 936. N. C— Spruill v. Daven- 
port, 27 N. C. 663. Okla — Caulk v. 
(TarTson, 44 Okla. 532, 145 Pac. 335. 
Tenn^-^Beuder' it. Moirteomery, 8 Lea 
586; 

[al Possession of a note br? the de- 
fendant, of which payment is sought 

Vol. XXI 



256 



PAYMENT 



not constitute payment,*' and what is or is not material to ^the proof 
of payment.*' The instructions should be in harmony with the issues,"" 
and the pleadings,'^ and must not be misleading,"^ nor invade the 
province of the jury."' 

III. VERDICT, JUDGMENT AND REVIEW. — The general rules 
applicable to all civil actions are applied, when there is an issue of 
paynient, to the verdict,"* judgment,"^ and review on appeal."' 



to be enforced by the plaintiff, is or- 
dinarily a prima facie presumption of 
payment, but it is not error to refuse 
an instruction to that effect when the 
defendant's honesty in obtaining pos- 
session of the note has been drar/'n in 
question. Caulk v. Carlson, 44 Okla. 
532, 14.5 Pac. 335. 

88. Cal. — Comptoir T) "Escompte de 
Paris V. Dresbach, 78 Cal. 15, 20 Pac. 
28. Mass. — Brown v. Bishop, 225 Mass. 
276, 114 N. E. 316. Mich.— Pennsyl- 
vania Min. Co. V. Brady & Co., 16 
Mich. 332. Minn. — Isackson v. Lovell, 
115 Minn. 481, 132 N. W. 918. Mo.— 
McMurray v. Taylor, 30 Mo. 263, 77 
Am. Dec. 611. Pa. — Schilling v. Durst, 
42 Pa. 126. 

89. Fletcher v. Young, 10 6a. App. 
183, 73 S. E. 38. 

90. People's Bank v. Stewart, 152 
Mo. App. 314, 133 S. W. 70, 136 Mo. 
App. 24, 117 S. W. 99 (holding that 
when the plea raises the issue of pay- 
ment in money it is error to go out- 
side of that issue and charge on an 
issue of payment by an agreement) ; 
Sheldon v. Heaton, 22 App. Div. 308, 
47 N. y. Supp. 1124. 

91. Gulfport Fertilizer Co. v. Jones 
(Ala. App.), 73 So. 145, holding that 
in the absence of a plea of payment 
there should be no charge on payment. 

[a] Assuming an Issue. — Upton v. 
Paxton (Iowa), 29 N. W. 809. 

92. Ala.— Porter v. Watkins, 196 



Ala. 333, 71 So. 687. Cal.— Low v. 
Warden, 77 Cal. 94, 19 Pac: 235. Ky. 
Stockton's Admr. v. Johnson, 6 B. 
Mon. 408. Mass. — Sullivan v. Sheehan, 
173 Mass. 361, 53 N. B. 902. Ore. 
Booths V. Scriber, 48 Ore. 561, 87 Pac. 
887, 90 Pac. 1002. E. I.— Earle v. 
Berry, 27 E. I. 221, 61 Atl. 671, 1 L. 
E. A. (N. S.) 867. Vt.— Belknap v. 
Billings, 78 Vt. 214, 62 Atl. 56. 

93. Benton v. Toler, 109 N. C. 238, 
13 S. E. 763; Gay v. MeGufln, 9 Tex. 
501. 

[a] Effect of a Receipt.- Eagle 
Brew. Co. v. Colaluca, 38 E. I. 224, 94 
Atl. 680. 

94. See generally the title "Ver- 
dict." 

95. See generally the title "Judg- 
ments." 

96. See infra this note, and gener- 
ally the title "Appeals." 

[a] Harmless Error. — Hinkle v. 
Higgins, 83 Tex. 615, 19 S. W. 147. 

[b] Objections on Appeal.— Clark 
V. Bell, 14 Cal. App. 326, 111 Pac. 1037. 

[c] Conclusiveness of Verdict 
Based on Conflicting Evidence. — Smith 
V. Camp, 84 Ga. 117, 10 S. E. 539. 

[d] Review of Questions of Fact 
Affirmed by an Inferior Appellate 
Court. — ^Drake v. Lux, 233 111. 522, 84 
N. E. 693. 

[e] Same Tbeoiy on Appeal. — 
Crilly V. Euyle, 87 Neb. 367, 127 N. 
W. 251. ' 



PAYMENT INTO COURT. — See Deposit in Court. 



PEACE. — See Breach of the Peace; Quieting Title; Security To 

Keep the Peace. 



PEDDLERS, — Sec Hawkers and Peddlers. 

Vol, XXI 



PENALTIES, FORFEITURES AND FINES 

By the Editorial Staff. 



I. DEFINITIONS AND DISTINCTIONS, 260 

A. The Terms Defined, 260 

1. "Fine" Defined, 260 

2. "Forfeiture" Defined, 260 

3. "Penalty" Defined, 261 

4. "Fine" or "Penalty" as Embracing Costs, 261 

5. "Fine" and "Amercement" Distinguished, 262 

B. Fines; Penalties and Forfeitures Distinguished From 

Each Other, 262 

II. NATURE OP PROCEEDINGS TO ENPORCE, 262 

A. As Being Civil or Criminal, 262 

B. As Being Ex Contractu or Ex Delicto, 264 

III. JURISDICTION, 285 

A. Extra Territorial Jurisdiction, 265 

B. Jurisdiction of Equity and Admiralty Courts, 266 

C. Jurisdiction of Particular Courts as Dependent on Stat- 

utes, 266 

D. Jurisdiction of Justices and Other Inferior Courts, 267 

E. As Affected ly Amount in Controversy, 267 

IV. VENUE, 267 

V. WHAT IS THE PROPER REMEDY, 269 

A. As Determined hy Statute, 269 

B. Bules Where No Procedure Is Prescribed, 271 

1. Common Law Remedy by Indictment, 271 

2. Action of Debt, 272 

3. A Libel In Bern, 273 

4. Information To Enforce Forfeiture, 273 

5. Arbitration, 273 

j^ Vol. XXI 



258 PENALTIES, FOBFEITUBES AND FINES 

VI. MATTERS PRELIMINARY TO RIGHT TO BRING PRO. 

CEEDINGS 273 

A. Necessity of Previous Conviction, 273 

B. Preliminary Complaint, 274 

VII. PARTIES, 274 

A. Informer's Bight To Sue, 274 

1. At Common Law, 274 

2. Statutory Authority To Sue Necessary, 274 

3. Construction of Particular Statutes as Giving Bight, 

275 

4. Bight to the Penalty as Implying the Bight to Sue, 

276 

5. Disability To Sue, 277 

B. Bight of Commonwealth To Bring Suit, 277 

C. Exclusiveness of Statutory Bight To Sue, 277 

D. Statutory Bight To Sue Is Strictly Construed, 278 
B. Amendment or Substitution of Parties Plaintiff, 278 

F. Joinder of Parties Plaintiff, 278 

G. Parties Defendant, 279 

1. Who May Be Sued, 279 

2. Joinder of Defendants, 279 

VIII. PROCESS AND SEIZURE, 280 

A. Summons or Other Process, 280 

B. Necessity of Seizure, 282 

IX. THE PLEADINGS, 282 

A. Plaintiff's Pleadings, 282 

1. In General, 283 

2. Becitals of Statute, 283 

3. Alleging the Offense, 285 

4. Allegations as to Bight to Penalty and Capacity To 

Sue, 286 

5. Allegations as to Damages, 286 

6. Joinder, 287 

7. Minuting and Indorsing, 288 

8. Treating Indictment as Complaint, 288 

B. Defendant's Pleadings, 288 
Vol. XXI 



PENALTIES, FORFEITURES AND FINES 259 

C. Amendment, 289 

X. ABATEMENT AND REVIVAL, 289 

XI. DISCONTINUANCE AND DISMISSAL, 290 

XII. RIGHT TO JURY TRIAL, 290 

XIII. SUMMARY FORFEITURE, 291 

XIV. PROVINCE OF COURT OR JURY, 292 

XV. VERDICT, FINDINGS AND JUDGMENT, 292 

A. In General, 292 

B. Default Judgment, 292 

C. Assessment of Penalty, 292 

D. Amount of Judgment or Verdict, 293 

B. Specifying Particular Penalty for Which Recovery Is 

Given, 293 
P. In Whose Favor Judgment Should Run, 294 
G. Judgment Against Joint Offenders, 294 

XVI. COSTS, 295 

A. Right To Tax, 295 

B. Amount Taxable, 295 

C. Security for Costs, 295 

XVII. REVIEW, 295 

A. New Trial, 295 

B. Appeal, 296 

C. Writ of Error, 297 

XVIII. ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENT, 297 

A. Civil Proceedings, 297 

B. Criminal Proceedings, 297 

1. Execution, 297 

2. Imprisonment of Defendant To Compel Payment, 298 
3! Distinction Between Capias Pro Fine, Capias ad 

Satisfaciendum, and Fieri Facias, 302 
i. Confessing Judgment and Giving Security There- 
upon, 303 

Vol. XXI 



260 



PENALTIES, F0BFEITUBE8 AND FINES 



5. Application of Prisoner's Funds in Court's Posses- 
sion, 304 

XIX. PARDON, REMISSION AND COMPOUNDING, 304 

A. Pardon or Remission, 304 

B. Compounding, 305 

CBOSS-BEFEBENCES: 

Admiralty; Search and Seizure; 

Summary Proceedings. 

Enforcement of in particular proceedings, see the specific titles and 
the index to this work. 

Informations in civil cas'?s generally, see 12 Standard Phoc. 704, 
et seq. 

For forms, see 9 Standaed Proc. 953, et seq. 

For further references and cross-references, see the index to this 
work and the cross-references throughout this article. 

. I, DEFINITIONS AND DISTINCTIONS. — A. The Teems De- 
fined. — 1. "Fine" Defined. — Viewed in its narrower sense a fine 
is a pecuniary punishment for an offense against the sovereignty,^ and 
in the commonly accepted legal definition it applies only to such pun- 
ishments as are meted out by the court after conviction.^ It has been 
said, too, that the sole purpose of a fine is punishment.' In its broader 
acceptation it is any moneys paid to make an end of the transaction,* 
and is not necessarily synonymous with pecuniary punishment, nor 
confined to such recoveries as may be had in criminal prosecutions.^ 

2. "Forfeiture" Defined. — In its strict sense forfeiture is the 



1. 1 Coke on Litt. 126b;State v. 
Eobertson, 15 Eich. L. (S. C.) 17. 

2. N". Y.— Village of Lancaster v. 
Eichardson, 4 Lans. 136. See also 
City of Hudson v. Granger, 23 Misc. 
401, 52 N. y. Supp. 9. N". C— State 
V. Addlngton, 143 N. C. 683, 57 S. E. 
398, following State v. Burton, 113 
N. C. 655, 18 S. E. 657. See also 
State V. Ostwalt, 118 N. C. 1208, 24 
S. E. 660. Tex. — State v. Steen, 14 
Tex. 396. 

[a] "The piimary definition of a 
fine is a pecuniary punishment inflicted 
by the sentence of a court exercising 
criminal jurisdiction. And this is the 
sense in which the term is used in 
common speech." State v. Missouri 

Vol. XXI 



Pac. E. Co., 64 Neb. 679, 90 N. W. 
877. 

3. State V. Steen, 14 Tex. 396. See 
Sinclair v. District of Columbia, 192 
U. S. 16, 24 Sup. Ct. 212, 48 L. ed. 
322; United States v. More, 3 Cranch 
(U. S.) 159, 2 L. ed. 397. 

[a] Punishment synonymous with 
fine when used by jury in a verdict 
assessing the "punishment" at a spe- 
cified sum. Beggs v. State, 122 Ind. 
54, 23 N. E. 693. 

4. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. 
State, 22 Kan. 1. 

5. Mass. — Hanscomb v. Eussell, 11 
Gray 373. Mo.— State v. West Plains 
Te}. Co., 232 Mo. 579, 135 S. W. 20. 
N. 0.— State v. Addington, 143 N. C. 
683, 57 S. B. 398. 



PENALTIES, FOBFEITUBES AND FINES 



261 



loss of particular property which thereupon becomes vested in the 
person injured as a recompense for the wrong inflicted upon him.^ 

3. "Penalty" Defined. — A penalty or penal sum is a sum of 
money payable as an equivalent or punishment for an injury/ In 
other words "penalty" is the all inclusive term, importing not only 
punishment by whatever name called,* but damages as well,* and 
though an obligation be in the form of a bond or security it may 
nevertheless be a penalty.^" By penalty, however, punishment is 
usually understood," and that too of a pecuniary nature.^^ So a 
statute which provides for imprisonment does not in the strict sense 
impose a penalty,^^ nor is a license tax in the nature of a penalty." 

4. "Fine" or "Penalty" as Embracing Costs. — The terms fine 
and penalty do not of themselves include costs." 



6. 2 Bl. Com. 267; Wiseman v. Mc- 
Nulty, 25 Cal. 230. See also Union 
Glass Co. V. First Nat. Bank No. 1, 
10 Pa. Co. Ct. 565. 

^' [a] Escheat and Forfeiture Distin- 
guished. — 4 Kent's ^Com. 426. See 
Matthews v. Ward, 10 GUI & J. (Md.) 
443. 

7. Okla. — Rogers v. Bonnett, 2 Okla. 
553, 37 Pae. 1078. Utah.— Haskins v. 
Bern, 19 Utah 89, 56 Pae. 953. W. Va. 
Hall V. Norfolk & W. E. Co., 44 W. Va. 
36, 30 S. B. 216. 

[al "A penalty or penal sum is a 
sum of money payable as an equivalent 
for an injury." E. & L. Law Diet., 
quoted in Eason v. Witcofskey, 29 S. C. 
239, 7 S. E. 291. 

[bl Defining "Penal Statute" and 
"Penalty." — In Woolverton v. Taylor, 
132 111. 197, 23 N. E. 1007, the court 
says: "A penal statute is defined 
to be 'one which imposes a forfeiture 
or penalty for transgressing its pro-' 
visions, or for doing a thing pro- 
hibited' (Potter's Dwarris on Statutes, 
p. 74). A penalty 'is in the nature^ 
of punishment for the non-performance 
of an act or for the performance of 
an unlawful act. It involves the idea 
of punishment, whether enforced by a 
civil or criminal liability.' Anderson's 
Law Diet. 763." 

8. Mich. — Grover v. Huekins, 26 
Mich. 476. See also Burrows v. Delta 
Transp. Co., 106 Mich. 582, 64 N. W. 
501. Mo. — State ex rel. Eeid v. Wal- 
bridge, 119 Mo. 383, 24 S. W. 457. See 
also State ex rel. Henson v. Sheppard, 
192 Mo. 497, 91 S. W. 477. Vt.— Drew 
«. Eussell, 47 Vt. 250. Eng. — Eeg. v. 
Smith, 9 Cox C. C. 110. See also 
Featherstone v. People, 194 111. 325, 62 
N. E. 684; Keg. v. Swan, 4 Cox C, C. 
108. I 



9. Huntington V. Attrill, 146 U. S. 
657, 13 Sup. Ct. 224, 36 L. ed. 1123; 
Tayloe v. Sandiford, 7 Wheat. (U. S.) 
13, 5 L. ed. 384; Burrows v. Delta 
Transp. Co., 106 Mich. 582, 64 N. W. 
501 (foUowing Hartford Fire Ins. Co. 
V. Eaymond, 70 Mich. 485, 38 N. W. 
474) ; Eobinson v. Miner, 68 Mich. 549, 
37 N. W. 21. 

10. United States v. Montell, Taney 
47, 26 Fed. Cas. No. 15^798. See also 
Clark V. Barnard, 108 U. S. 436, 2 Sup. 
Ct. 878, 27 L. ed. 780; State v. Egger- 
man, 81 Tex. 569, 16 S. W. 1067; Hill 
County V. Atchison, 19 Tex. Civ. App. 
664, 49 S. W. 141. 

11. Taylor v. Matchell, 1 How. 
(Mi'ss.) 596. 

12. €ity of Earlville v. Eadley, 141 
111. App. 359. See Queen v. Justices 
of Middlesex (1882), L. E. 9 Q. B. 
Div. (Eng.) 41; Eex v. Leech, 17 Ont. 
L. E. (Can.) 643, 662. 

13. Village of Lancaster v. Eich- 
ardson, 4 Lans. (N. Y.) 136. See also 
Drew V. Eussell, 47 Vt. 250. But 
compare Hodge v. Queen, L. E. 9 App. 
Cas. (Eng.) 117, where the court says: 
"Whether the word 'penalty' is well 
adapted to include imprisonment may 
be questioned, but in this Act it is 
so used. . . . 'Penalty' here seems 
to be used in its wider sense as equiv- 
alent to punishment." 

14. San Luis Obispo County v. Hen- 
dricks, 71 Cal. 242, 11 Pae. 682, quoted 
and followed in City of Sacramento 
V. Dillman, 102 Cal. 107, 36 Pae. 385. 

15. Lord V. State, 37 Me. 177. See 
also Anglea v. Com.,' 10 Gratt. (51 
Va.) 696, where it was held a pardon 
"from all pains, penalties atd for- 
feitures" would not relieve one from 
the payment of costs. "The fine is 
imposed for the purpose of punish- 

Vol. XXI 



262 



FJUNAVflES, FORFEITURES AND FINES 



5. "Pine" and "Amercement" Distinguished. — In its strict com- 
mon law use "amercement" differed from a fine mainly in the method 
of its infliction.^^ In its more modern use it is applied to statutory 
proceedings against officers of the court for neglect of duty.^' 

B. Fines, Penalties and Forfeitures Distinguished From Bach 
Oth-er. — In theory the distinction is clear, that a fine is pecuniary, 
a forfeiture applies only to property and a penalty is the generic term 
which includes both the others. But in practice the three terms are 
often used interchangeably.^' Whether f orf eiture , and fine are to be 
considered synonymous depends entirely upon the context in which 
they are used.^' Forfeiture is distinguishable from fine in that it 
may mean the sequestration of property and fine does not necessarily 
carry that signification.^" As used in statutes the words forfeiture 
and penalty are usually synonymous,^^ but the wording of the par- 
ticular statute will of course govern.^^ A distinction is sometimes 
drawn between a fine as being imposed in criminal proceedings and a 
penalty as being recovered in a civil action,^^ and it has been said that 
the imposition of the fine makes it a penalty.^* While technically these 
distinctions may be sound there can be no question that the use of the 
word "penalty" frequently imports a "fine" in the stricter sense.^^ 

II. NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS TO ENFORCE. — A, As Being 
Civil or Criminal. — An action for a penalty is a civil proceed- 
ing,^"^ and is generally considered a "civil cause" within the statutory 



meat." The costs "are exacted sim- 
ply for the purpose of reimbursing to 
the public treasury the precise amount 
which the conduct of the defendant 
has rendered it necessary should be ex- 
pended for the vindication of the pub- 
lie justice of the state and its vio- 
lated laws." 

16. See 4 Bl. Com. 379; Bacon's 
Abr., "Pines and Amercements." 

17. See the following cases: Kan. 
Graves v. Bulkley, 25 Kan. 249. Neb. 
Fire Assn. v. Buby, 49 Neb. 584. 68 
N. W. 939. N. J.— Patterson Bank v. 
Hamilton, 13 N. J. L. 158; Stansbury 
V. Patent Clock Mfg. Co., 5 N. J. L. 
433. Ohio. — Wadsworth v. Parsons, 6 
Ohio 449; Stone v. EufSn, 2 Ohio 503; 
Dawson v. Holcomb, 1 Ohio 275; Busb- 
nell V. Eaton, Wright 720. 

fa] "An amercement is a penalty 
and is for a fixed sum without regard 
to the little or much of the plain- 
tiff's damage." Thompson v. Berry, 
65 N. 0. 484. See also Taylor v. 
Ehyne, 65 N. C. 530: Frost v. Row- 
land, 27 N. C. 385: McLin «. Hardie. 
25 N. C. 407. 

18. Gosselink v. Campbell, 4 Iowa 
296, citing Webster's Diet, and Jao. 
Law Diet. See: Ky. — Com. v. French, 
130 Ky. 744, 114 S. W. 255. N. H. 

Vol. XXI 



State V. McConnell, 70 N. H. 158, 46 
Atl. 458. Wis.— State v. Hamley, 137 
Wis. 458, 119 N. W. 114. 

19. See Eva parte Alexander, 39 Mo. 
App. 108. 

20. Eosebaugh v. S&Mn, 10 Ohio 31. 

21. See the following: Ala. — Maelin 
V. Wilson, 21 Ala. 670." Pa. — Crawley 
V. Com., 123 Pa. 275, 16 Atl. 416. S. C. 
Butler V. Butler. 62 S. C. 165, 40 S. E. 
138. Can. — Shrigley v. Taylor, 4 Ont. 
Bep. 396. 

22. See Hawkins v. Furnace Co., 40 
Ohio St. 507; Southern Exp. Co. v. 
Com., 92 Va. 59, 22 S. E. 809. 

23. Ind. — Common Council v. Fair- 
child, 1 Ind. 315. N. y.— City of Hud- 
son V. Granger, 23 Misc. 401, 52 N. Y. 
Supp. 9. N. C. — Board o'f Education 
V. Henderson, 126 N. C. 689, 36 S. E. 
158. 

24. Wilcox V. KnoxviUe Borough. 12 
Pa. Co. Ct. 641. 

25. See: U. S.— United States v. 
Eeiainger, 128 XJ. S. 398, 9 Sup. Ct. 99, 
32 L. ed. 480. Minn. — State v. Hor- 
gan, 55 Minn. 183, 56 N. W. 688. 
N. H.— State v. Marshall, 64 N. H. 
549, 15 Atl. 210. 

26. U. S.— United States v. Atlantic 
Coast Line E. Co., 173 Fed. 764, 98 
C. C. A. 110; United States i\ Louis- 



FJiNALTIES, FORFEITURES AND FINES 



263 



and constitutional provisions.^' It is sometimes said to be only ' ' quasi 
civil" in its nature,^* and it is clearly to some extent criminal in its 
nature.^' Of course the wording of the statute as a whole determines 
the nature of the proceedings provided therein.^" In other words the 
use of particular technical terms is not necessarily conclusive.'^ 

It has been said that an action in the name of the state for a 
penalty is criminal though civil in form,'^ and that the true test is to 



ville & N. E. Co., 167 Fed. 306, 93 
C. C. A. 58; United States u. South- 
ern Pae. Co., 172 Fed. 909; United 
States V. Baltimore & O. K. Co., 170 
Fed. 456; United States v. Southern 
Pac. Co., 162 Fed. 412. lU.— People v. 
Blue Mountain Joe, 129 111. 370, 21 
N. E. 923; Town of Partridge v. Sny- 
der, 78 111. 519; Webster v. People, 
14 111. 365; Caldwell v. Wright, 25 
111. App. 74. Md. — State v. Mace, 5 
Md. 337. Ma^. — Eoberge v. Burnham, 
124 Mass. 277. Mich.— People v. Hoff- 
man, 3 Mich. 248. N. H. — Dow v. 
Norrig, 4 N. H. 16. Neh.— Mitchell 
V. State, 12 Neb. 538, 11 N. W. 848. 
N. C. — City of Wilmington v. Davis, 
63 N. C. 582. Eng.— Wilson v. Eostall, 
4 T. E. 753, 100 Eng. Eeprint 1283; 
Ateheson v. Everitt, 1 Cowp. 382, 98 
Eng. Eeprint 1142. 

See 9 Enct. op Ev. 749; 5 Enct. 
OP Ev. 835. 

In admiralty, see 1 Standard Peoc. 
420, note 49. 

[a] Within the rule as to removal 
of causes, see Gruetter v. Cumberland 
Tel. & Tele. Co., 181 Fed. 248, and the 
title "Removal of Causes." 

[b] A qui tam action is a civil ac- 
tion. Brophy v. Perth Amboy, 44 N. 
J. L. 217. 

27. See Grenada Lumb. Co. v. State, 
98 Miss. 536, 54 So. 8; Mobile & O. E, 
Co. V. State, 51 Miss. 137; Dow v. 
Norris, 4 N. H. 16. But see Bllmore 
V. Hoffman, 2 Ashm. (Pa.) 159, where 
an action for a penalty is said not to 
be a "civil cause of action" within 
the clause of a statute defining juris-' 
diction. Compare 5 Enct. op Ev. 835. 

28. See infra, this note. 

[a] "'Proceedings for offenses pun- 
ishable by fine only axe of a quasi 
civil nature and hence statutes per- 
mitting informations therein are not 
unconstitutional," under a constitu- 
tion forbidding informations for in- 
dictable offenses. Louisville & N. E. 
Co. V. Com., 112 Ky. 635, 66 S. W. 
505. See also Equitable Life Assur. 
Soe. V. Com., 113 Ky. 126, 67 S. W. 



388; Com. v. Avery, 14 Bush (Ky.) 
625. Compare American Express Co. 
V. Com. 171 Ky. 1, 186 S. W. 887. 

29. See infra, this note. 

[a] An action to recover a penalty 
is a civil proceeding, though to some 
extent criminal in its nature. Hepner 
V. United States, 213 U. S. 103, 29 
Sup. Ct. 474, 53 L. ed. 720; United 
States V. Zucker, 161 U. S. 475, 16 
Sup. Ct. 641, 40 L. ed. 777; Lees v. 
United States, 150 U. S. 476, 14 Sup.. 
Ct. 163, 37 L. ed. 1150; Boyd v. United 
States, 116 U. S. 616, 6 Sup. Ct. 524, 
29 L. ed. 746; Coffey v. United States, 
116 U. 8. 436, 6 Sup. Ct. 437, 29 L, 
ed. 684; United States v. Illinois Cent, 
E. Co., 170 Fed. 542, 95 C. C. A. 628 
United States v. Baltimore & O. S. W, 
E. Co., 159 Fed. 33, 86 C. C. A. 223; 
Ateheson v. Everitt, 1 Cowp. 382, 98 
Eng. Eeprint 1142. See also Eoberge 
V. Burnham, 124 Mass. 277; Hitchcock 
V. Munger, 15 N. H. 97. 

30. State v. West Plains Tel. Co., 
232 Mo. 579, 135 S. W. 20: Wells v. 
Com., 107 Va. 834, 57 8. E. 588, dis- 
tingmsMng Jernigan v. Com., 104 Va. 
850, 52 S. E. 361, and Ex parte Marx, 
86 Va. 40,- 9 S. E. 475. 

31. State V. McConnell, 70 N. H. 
158, 46 A'tl. 458, citing State v. Pate, 
44 N. C. 244. See United States v. 
Elliott, 25 Fed. Cas. No. 15,043. 

[a] The mere "inaccurate use" of 
the word "fined" does not warrant the 
assumption that the proceedings are 
criminal. Kelly v. Davis, 1 Head 
(Tenn.) 71. 

32. See infra, this note. 

[a] The action in the name of the 
commonwealth to recover a penalty is 
not a civil action within the mean- 
ing of the statutes making judgments 
of common pleas final but is review- 
able on certiorari. While civil in form it 
is a proceeding for a criminal offense. 
Coin. V. Betts, 76 Pa. 465, approved 
and followed in Com. v. Butler, 39 Pa. 
Super. 125. Compare Mahoney Boro v. 
Wadlinger, 142 Pa. 308, 21 Atl. 823. 

Vol. XXI 



264' 



PENALTIES, FOBFEITUBES AND FINES 



inquire whether the proceeding is by indictment or action.^^ But on 
the other hand it has been held that the character of the proceeding 
is not changed or affected by such considerations.^* It seems the true 
test is that the procedure adopted as a whole determines the nature 
of the proceedings.^' Where the purpose of the proceeding is the 
personal conviction and sentence of the defendant, it is clearly crim- 
inal.'^ Therefore if a statute provides a penalty of fine or imprison- 
ment, or both, the procedure for its enforcement must be b^ criminal 
proceedings and not civil action." Similarly the prosecution must be 
.according to criminal procedure where not only a fine is imposed but 
the offender is put under bonds not to repeat the offense.'* 

Actious To Enforce Municipal Ordinances. — In many jurisdictions pro- 
ceedings to enforce municipal ordinances are considered merely civil 
proceedings, notwithstanding the procedure is to some degree that 
applicable to criminal proceedings.'^ 

B. As Being Ex Contractu or Ex Delicto. — Though in form 
ex contractu the action for a penalty is in substance ex delicto,*" the 
weight of opinion having repudiated the doctrine laid down by BlaCk- 
stone, that the action arises out of the implied contract between the 
individual, and the community,*^ though that theory is stiU sometimes 



33. Mitchell v. State, 12 Neb. 538, 
11 N. W. 848. 

[a] An information qui tarn is a 
criminal proceeding while an action 
qui tam is civil. Canfield v. Mitchell, 
43 Conn. 169. But see Ward v. Tyler, 
1 Nott & McG. (S. C.) 22. 

34. Brophy v. Perth Amboy, 44 N. 
J. L. 217, the court holding a qui tam 
action to be civil, says: "The distinc- 
tion suggested ^hat the proceeding is to 
be regarded as criminal where the act 
prohibited is punishable by indictment 
or other criminal procedure, but other- 
wise as civil, is not allowable. The 
character of the proceeding for the 
recovery of the pecuniary penalty is 
not changed or affected by such con- 
siderations. ' ' 

35. Mo.— State v. Ford, 70 Mo. 469. 
N. Y.— City of Hudson v. Granger, 23 
Misc. 401, 52 N. Y. Supp. 9. Vt. 
Waters v. Day, 10 Vt. 487. 

36. See Dobbins Distillery v. United 
States, 96 U. S. 395, 24 L. ed. 637; 
People V. Briggs, 114 N. Y. 56, 20 
N. E. 820. 

37. Coffey v. United States, ll6 U. 
S. 436, 6 Sup. Ct. 437, 29 L. ed. 684; 
United States v. Claflin, 97 U. S. 546. 
24 L. ed. 1082. See also: XT. S.— United 
States V. Morin, 4 Biss. 93, 26 Fed. 
Gas. No. 15,810. Wash.— Fowler v. 
United States, 1 Wash. Ter. 3. Wyo. 
Fein v. United States, 1 Wyo. 246. 

[a] The prosecuting attorney may 

Vol. XXI 



not waive the punishment by proceed- 
ing in a civil action to collect the 
money penalty. United. States v. 
Morin, 4 Biss. 93, 26 Fed. Cas. No. 
15,810. 

38. Pardee v. Smith, 27 Mich. 33. 

39. See the title "Municipal Cor- 
porations." 

40. U. S.— Chaffee v. United States, 
18 Wall. 516, 21 L. ed. 908. Ala. 
Wright V. Sample, 162 Ala. 222, 50 So. 
268. See also Crawford v. Slaton, 133 
Ala. 393, 31 So. 940; Higdon v. Ken- 
nemer, 120 Ala. 193. 24 So. 439; Wil- 
liams V. Bowden, 69 Ala. 433. G-a. 
Western Union Tel. Co. v. Taylor, 8i 
Ga. 408, 11 S. E. 396. HI.- Bowers 
V. Green, 2 111. 42; Coles v. Madison 
County, 1 111. 154. Ind. — Western 
Union Tel. Co. v. Young, 93 Ind. 118. 
N. Y. — McCoun v. New York Cent. & 
S. R. B. Co., 7 Lans. 75. Pa.— Schaf- 
fer V. M'Namee, 13 Serg. & B. 44; 
Zeigler v. Gram, 13 Serg. & B. 102. 

[a] Penalty for Failure To DeUver 
Telegram. — Western Union Tel. Co. v. 
Bright, 90 Va. 778, 20 S. E. 146. 

41. See cases in preceding note, 
[a] Doctrine of Blackstone. — In 

Hitchcock V. Munger, 15 N. H. 97, in 
discussing the nature of a qui tam 
action the court says: "In Hill v. 
Davis, 4 Mass. 140 (137), following 
the doctrine of Blackstone, 3 Comm. 
117, 161, the court considered the action 
as ex contractu. But in Hardyman v. 



PENALTIES, FORFEITURES AND FINES 



265 



met with.^? Information qui tam for a penalty has been said to be in 
nature an action of tort.*' 

III. JURISDICTION. — A. Extraterritorial Jurisdiction. 
Penal laws have no extraterritorial force, and therefore cannot be 
enforced as against persons not within the state,** but a penalty may 
be enforced though part of the transaction on which it is based took 
place without the state.*^ The law is fundamental that no country 
will enforce the penal laws of another country.*" Pursuant to this 
rule the courts of one state will not enforce the penal laws of a sister 
state,*^ and the courts of the respective states will not enforce the penal 
laws of the United States.** The term "penal" law is here used in its 



Whitaker, 2 East 573 (n), it was held 
to b« founded upon a tort. And such 
is the opinion of this court in Powers 
V. Speer, 3 N. H. 35." 

42. Katzenstein v. Ealeigh & D. E. 
Co., 84 N. C. 688. See also Doughty 
V. Atlantic, etc. R. Co., 78 N. C. 22; 
Town of Edenton v. Wool, 65 N. C. 
379; City of Wilmington v. Davis, 63 
N. C. 582. Compare Wartman v. Em- 
pire Loan Co., 45 Tex. Civ. App. 469. 
101 S. W. 499. 

43. United States v. Elliott, 25 Fed. 
Cas.No. 15,043. 

44. Jones v. Fidelity Loan & Trust 
Co., 7 S. D. 122, 63 N. W. 553. See 
also Western Trans. & Coal Co. v. Kil- 
derhousoj 87 N. T. 430. 

45. Western Union Tel. Co. v. Pen- 
dleton, 95 Ind. 12, the sender of a 
telegram may recover a statutory pen- 
alty on its non-delivery without the 

46." Huntington v. Attrill, 146 U. S. 
657, 13 Sup. Ct. 224, 36 L. ed. 1123; 
The Antelope, 10 Wheat. (U. S.) 66, 
6 L. ed. 268. See also: U. S. — Wis- 
consin V. Pelican Ins. Co., 127 U. S. 
265, 8 Sup. Ct. 1370, 32 L. ed. 239; 
State of Indiana v. Alleghany Oil Co., 
85 Fed. 870. Md.— First Nat. Bank 
V. Price, 33 Md. 487. Mass. — Halsey 
V. McLean. 12 Allen 438. N. J. — Der- 
rickson v. Smith, 27 N. J. L. 166. Ohio. 
Kulp V. Fleming, 65 Ohio St. 321, 62 
N. E. 334. Pa. — Aultman's Appeal, 98 
Pa. 505. 

See 17 Standaed Proc. 773, note 77. 

47. Thornton v. Dean, 19 S. C. 583. 
See also: XJ. S. — Stearns v. United 
States, 2 Paine 300, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 
13,342. HI.— Sherman v. Gassett, 9 HI. 
521. Mass. — Gale v. Eastman, 7 Met. 
14. Vt.— SlaeE v. Gibbs, 14 Vt. 357. 
Wis. — Bettys v. Milwaukee & St. P. 
E. Co., 37 Wis. 323, double damages 



given by way of penalty for killing 
stock. 

See IS Standard Proc. 648. 

[a] This rule- extends to the en- 
forcement of a judgment based on a 
penal statute of a sister state notwith- 
standing the constitutional provision 
that full faith and credit must be 
given to such judgments. Wisconsin 
V. Pelican Ins. Co., 127 U. S. 265, 8 
Sup. Ct. 1370, 32 L. ed. 239, citing 
.Wharton's Conflict of Laws, §833; 
Westlake's International Law (1st ed.), 
§388; Piggott on Foreign Judgments, 
§§209, 210; 2 Kames on Equity (3rd 
ed.) 326, 366; Story's Conflict of Laws, 
§§600, 622, and disapproving la. — In- 
diana V. Helmer, 21 Iowa 370. Mass. 
Healy v. Boot, 11 Pick. 389. Ohio. 
Spencer v. Brockway, 1 Ohio 259, in 
so far as they hold the contrary on 
the ground that when these decisions 
were rendered the provisions of Ihe 
constitution and acts of congress as 
to full faith and credit had not been 
given a full exposition from this court. 
See also 15 Standard Proc. 648. 

48. U. S. — Eobertson v. Baldwin, 165 
U. S. 275, 17 Sup. Ct. 326, 41 L. ed.' 
715. Conn. — See Ely v. Peck, 7 Conn. 
239 (where it was attempted under an 
act of congress to enforce a penalty 
against a seaman for desertion) ; Davi- 
son V. ChampIiD, 7 Conn. 244, where 
the penalty was for violation of the 
postal laws. Ky. — Haney v. Sharp, 1 
Dana 442. Mass. — Ward v. Jenkins, 10 
Met. 583. K H.— State v. Pike, 15 
N. H. 83. N. Y.— United States v. 
Lathrop, 17 Johns. 4; Delafield v. 
State, 2 Hill 159. Wis.— Brigham v. 
Claflin, 31 Wis. 607. 

[a] Where such jurisdiction has been 
upheld it is said to be optional with 
the state court to refuse to assume it. 
Stearns v. United States, 2 Paine 300, 
22 Fed. Cas. No. 13,341. 

Vol. XXI 



U6 



PENALTIES, FOBFEITUBES AND FINES 



international sense as distinguished from a law which though in form 
a penalty is remedial in its nature.** 

The United States courts have jurisdiction to entertain actions for 
the recovery of penalties given by state statutes to individuals to com- 
pensate them for injuries sustained, but will not entertain jurisdiction 
of a cause where the penalty is to be paid to the state treasury, even 
though part thereof goes to the informer or person suing therefor.^" 
The supreme court of the United States will not take jurisdiction of 
an action by a state to enforce a penalty under its original jurisdiction 
of controversies between a state and citizens of another state,^^ nor 
will that court lend its aid to enforce such penal statutes by injunc- 
tion.'^ 

B. JuEiSDiCTiON OP Equity and Admiralty Codets. — It is a 
universal rule never to enforce* either a penalty or a forfeiture in 
equity,^^ the only apparent exceptions to this rule being due to con- 
stitutional and statutory enactments abolishing the distinctions be- 
tween law and equity courts.'* 

Jurisdiction a^ at Common Law or in Admiralty Where a seizure is 

made on land, the United States district court sits as a common law 
court, but where it is made on navigable waters the court sits as a 
court of admiralty.'' 

C. Jueisdiction of Particulae Courts as Dependent on Stat- 
utes. — The jurisdiction of particular courts to try actions for pen- 
alties and forfeitures is to be determined by the constitution and 
statu;tes of the particular states,"' or by the constitution and statutes 



[b] Jurisdiction conferred on state 
by act of congress to enforce penalty 
created by the act. See Missouri Eiver 
Tel. Co. V. First Nat. Bank, 74 III. 
217. Compare In re Second Employers' 
Liability Cases, 223 TJ. S. 1, 32 Sup. 
Ct. 169, 56 L. ed. 327, and 17 Stand- 
AED Peoc. 827. 

49. See Second Employers' Liabil- 
ity Cases, 223 XJ. S. 1, 32 Sup. Ct. 
169, 56 L. ed. 327 {explaining Claflin 
V. Houseman, 93 TJ. S. 130, 23 L. ed. 
833); Ordway v. Central Nat. Bank, 
47 Md. 217; 15 Standard Pboc. 648. 

[a] As to distinction between penal 
and remedial laws, see Huntington i\ 
AttriU, 146 U. S. 657, 13 Sup. Ct. 224, 
36 L. ed. 1123. 

50. Younts V. Southwestern Tel. & 
Tele. Co., 192 Fed. 200. See also 
Huntington v. Attrill, 146 U. S. 657, 
13 Sup. Ct. 224, 36 L. ed. 1123; Boston 
& Maine E. Co. v. Kurd, 108 Fed. 116, 
47 C. C. A. 615; United Breweries Co. 
V. Colby, 170 Fed. 1008, writ of error 
dismissed, 178 Fed. 1005. 

51. Wisconsin v. Pelican Ins. Co., 
127 TJ. 8. 265, 8 Sup. Ct. 1370, 32 L. 
ed. 239. See also Oklahoma v. Gulf, 
C. & S. P. E. Co., 220 U. S. 290, 31 

Vol. XXI 



Sup. Ct. 437, 55 L. ed, 469; Hunting- 
ton V. Attrill, 146 U. S. 657, 13 Sup. 
Ct. 224, 36 L. ed. 1123. 

52. Oklahoma v. Gulf, C. & S. P. 
E. Co., 220 TJ. S. 290, 31 Sup. Ct. 
437, 55 L. ed. 469. 

53. Woolverton v. Taylor, 132 111. 
197, 23 N. E. 1007; Queenan v. Palmer, 
117 111. 62, 619, 7 N. E. 470, 613. And 
see the title "Equity Jurisdiction and 
Procedure." 

54. See Grenada Lumb. Co. v. State, 
98 Miss. 536, 54 So. 8. 

55. "The Sarah," 8 Wheat. (U. S.) 
391, 5 L. ed. 644. See also Shawnee 
Nat. Bank v. United States (0. C. A.), 
249 Fed. 583. 

For forfeiture proceedings in ad- 
miralty, see the title "Admiralty." 

56. See the constitutions and stat- 
utes, and the following cases: Ky. 
Com. V. Sherman, 85 Ky. 686, 4 S. W. 
790; Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Com., 5 Bush 
68. Mo.— State v. Ford, 70 Mo. 469. 
E. I. — State V. Slocum, 9 E. I. 373. 
Tex. — State v. Eggerman Co., 81 Tex. 
569, 16 8. W. 1067; Aulanier v. The 
Governor, 1 Tex. 653; Hill County v. 
J. M. Atkinson, 19 Tex. Civ. App. 664. 
49 S. W. 141. * 



PENALTIES, EOBFEITVBES AND FINES 



267 



of the United States." 

D. Jurisdiction of Justices and Other Inferior Courts. — The 
jurisdiction of inferior courts such as justices of the peace depend 
entirely upon the constitutions and statutes and upon the general 
principles elsewhere treated.^^ A general grant of civil jurisdiction 
carries jurisdiction of actions for penalties in the absence of express 
contrary intention.^^ 

E. As Affected by Amount in Controversy". — In arriving at 
the minimum or maximum jurisdictional amount the general rules, 
elsewhere treated, are applied.^" Where exclusive jurisdiction of suits 
for a particular penalty is given by statute to a justice's court, it is 
not ousted of jurisdiction because several penalties are joined, the 
aggregate amount of which exceeds the ordinary jurisdictional limit 
for a justice's court.^^ 

IV. VENUE.^^ — At the early common law actions for penalties 
were transitory,"^ but later in England, °* and by statute in most of 



57. Lees v. United States, 150 TJ. S. 
476, 14 Sup. Ct. 163, 37 L. ed. 1150. 

[a] The United States courts have 
exclusive jurisdiction to determine a 
forfeiture under the laws of the United 
States. Gelston v. Hoyt, 3 Wheat. 
(U. S.) 246, 4 L. ed. 381; Sloeum 
V. Mayberry, 2 Wheat. (V. S.) 1, 4 
L. ed. 169. See also the title "United 
States Courts."- 

58. See the titles "Jurisdiction;" 
"Justices of the Peace;" also 17 
Standard Peoc. 966, and the following 
cases: N. J. — Koch v. Vanderhoof, 49 
N. J. L. 619, 9 Atl. 771. Compare 
WooUey v. Bell, 69 N. J. L. 581, 55 
Atl. 66. N. Y.— Mayor, etc. of New 
York V. Decker, 12 Daly 64. Pa. — ^Ell- 
more V. Hoffman, 2 Ashm. 159, follow- 
ing Zeigler v. Gram, 13 Serg. & E. 
102, and SchafEer v. M'Kaniee, 13 Serg. 
& E. 44. 

[a] Effect on justice's jurisdiction 
of title to land being drawn in (question 
in action of debt for penalty arising 
out of trespass on land, see Morrison 
V. Bedell, 22 N. H. "234; also 17 Stand- 
ard Proc. 967, note 63 [a]; 17 Stand- 
ard Proc. 946, et seq. 

[b] Whether jurisdiction exclusive, 
see Cal. — Smith v. Omnibus E. Co., 36 
Cal. 281; Eeed v. Omnibus E. Co., 33 
Cal. 212. Ill.-^People v. Young, 72 
111. 411. N. H. — Eocheister v. Eoberts, 
29 N. H. 360. N. C— City of Wilming- 
ton V. Davis, 63 N. C. 582. 

59. See 17 Standard Proc. 866, and 
following cases: 111. — Indianapolis, etc. 
E. Co. V. People, 91 111. 452. Mass. 
Com. V. Conn. E, E. Co., 15 Gray 447. 
See also Hanseomb v. Eussell, 11 Gray 
373. N. J. — Koch v. Vanderhoof, 49 



N. J. L. 619, 9 Atl. 771. N. C— Kat- 
zenstein v. Ealeigh & G. E. Co., 84 
N. C. 688, following City of Wilming- 
ton V. Davis, 63 N. C. 582. 

60. See 17 Standard Proc. 831, et 
seq. 

[a] Where several penalties are 
joined, see 17 Standard Proc. 864, 
867. (1) Where the offenS'e is com- 
pleted by one act, additional penalties 
for further acts connected therewith 
are added together and the jurisdiction 
determined by the sum of the penalties. 
Conn. — Barkhamsted v. Parsons, 3 
Conn. 1. Miss. — Mobile & O. E. Co., 
V. State, 51 Miss. 137. Can, — Eeg. v. 
Plows, 26 Ont. 339. Compare Indian- 
apolis, etc. E. Co. V. People, 91 111. 
452; and 17 Standard Proc. 867. (2) 
Where the aggregate sum is above the 
minimum limit of its jurisdiction, the 
superior court has jurisdiction. Carter 
17. Wilmington, etc. E. Co., 126 N. C. 
437, 36 S. E. 14. See also Burrell v. 
Hughes, 116 N. C. 430, 21 S. B. 971; 
Maggett V. Eoberts, 108 N. C. 174, 12 
S. E. 890. 

61. Eeed v. Omnibus E. Co., 33 Cal. 
212, followed in Smith