Ballard vs. Ridgely et al.

Ballard vs. Ridgely et al. Under the statute, Jan. 4, 1839, relating to promissory notes, it is sufficient to prove the existence ot a partnership, and its style, and not necessary to prove the indi, vidual names of the partners. In a suit commenced previous to that statute, the trial of which took place after-wards, the rules of decision in all the subsequent stages of the proceeding, so far as they relate merely to the remedy, will be regulated by that statute. Ridgely &al. brought their action in a plea of trespass on the case on promises against Ballard on a promissory note. Judgment was entered for the plaintiffs by consent of parties, and a bill of exceptions was thereupon filed by Ballard’s attorney for “that they failed to prove the individual names of the said firm aslaid in the declaration,” and that thereupon the Court decided that it was not necessary to prove the individual names of said firm, but only necessary to prove the existence of said firm. Woods, for plaintiff in error. Browning, for defendants, [MAJORITY — Mason, C. J.] By the Court — Mason, C. J. — This case has been submitted without argument,and even without stating the points relifeduponfartherthan they are contained in the bill of exceptions. The action below, however, it appears, was upon a promissory note given by the plaintiff in error to the firm of Ridgely and Bil-lon, by their partnership name. On the trial, the existence of the firm was proved, but not the individualnames ot the partners composing it. The Court decided this to be sufficient, and this decision was undoubtedly correct, being in direct accordance with the statute of this Territory in relation to promissory notes, &c, Approved, Jan. 4, 1839. It is true, this suit was commenced previous to the passage of that act, but the trial took place afterwards, and the rules of decision in all the subsequent proceedings, so far as they relate merely to the remedy, mnst be regulated by that statute. The judgment below is therefore affirmed.