From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

ADEE v. CROW

City Court of New York — General Term
Feb 1, 1894
7 Misc. 256 (N.Y. City Ct. 1894)

Opinion

February, 1894.

Albertus Perry, for appellant.

Stephen M. Yeaman, for respondent.


The action is on a promissory note made by the defendant to the order of one John Tilley, and by him delivered to the plaintiff.

The sole ground urged against the verdict is that the plaintiff did business under the name and style of "Fred. Adee Co.," without having a partner.

The defense was not pleaded, and the plaintiff was not called upon to prove that he had secured the right to use the firm name under existing statutes.

But aside from this, the defense was unavailable against the note in suit. Gay v. Seibold, 97 N.Y. 475.

The appeal is destitute of merit and the judgment must be affirmed, with costs.

VAN WYCK and FITZSIMONS, JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.


Summaries of

ADEE v. CROW

City Court of New York — General Term
Feb 1, 1894
7 Misc. 256 (N.Y. City Ct. 1894)
Case details for

ADEE v. CROW

Case Details

Full title:FRED. ADEE, Respondent, v . MOSES R. CROW, Appellant

Court:City Court of New York — General Term

Date published: Feb 1, 1894

Citations

7 Misc. 256 (N.Y. City Ct. 1894)
27 N.Y.S. 973

Citing Cases

In re Application of U.S. for Material Witness Warrant

See United States v. All Funds on Deposit at Wells Fargo Bank in San Francisco, Cal., in Acct. No.…