TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Felichy v. Hamilton

Felichy v. Hamilton, 8 F. Cas. 1129 (1806)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania · Historical Federal Courts
Decided
October 15, 1806
Docket
No. 4,719
Judges
Washington
Citations
8 F. Cas. 11291 Wash. C. C. 491

Opinion of the Court — Washington

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

WASHINGTON, Circuit Justice.

To constitute a partnership, there must be a community of interest; a participation in profit and loss; and this joint interest must continue to the time of the sale, as well as to the purchase. This joint interest in the whole, is what constitutes the liability of . all for the contracts of one. If the Mackeys and Hamilton purchased on joint account, and shipped the snuff to be sold on joint account, then they are liable jointly for the advances made by the plaintiffs, on account of this joint concern. The measure of their interest in the snuff, will be the measure of their liability for the advances. If they were not jointly concerned in the sale, the conduct of the Mackeys, in making the shipment on joint account, if not done with the knowledge of Hamilton, cafinot make it a partnership transaction. But, if they were jointly concerned in the sale, then the plaintiff, corresponding only with the Mackeys, did not discharge Hamilton. The responsibility of one partner, for the contracts of another, is not solely on the ground of the credit being given to all, which it is not in the case of a dormant partner; but because, that being to share the profits, they must share the loss. Neither would the agreement of one partner with another, not to act in the business; whatever may be the effect of this as between the parties, it is nothing to third persons; neither ought the plaintiff to be affected by his having claimed only a moiety from Hamilton. For, if there was really a partnership, it was no more than a mistake of his legal rights.

Verdict for plaintiff.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1886–1887: 118862026peak 1886 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Hunt v. Oliver118 U.S. 211 (1886)

Most recent

  1. Hunt v. Oliver118 U.S. 211 (1886)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list