Civil Procedure · MBE-tested
Gullat & Scott v. Tucker
2 D.C. 332 Cranch 33·United States Circuit Court of the District of Columbia·1811
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
Gullat & Scott v. Tucker.
A copartnership is not chargeable for goods sold to one of the partners for his separate use, although he ordered them to he charged to the firm, if the vendor knew, at the time of sale, that they were for the sole use of that partner.
Assumpsit, for balance of account. The defendant had charged the firm of G. & S., who were bakers, with groceries delivered to G. and originally charged to G. in the books of Tucker, but were got by G. and ordered by him to be' charged to the partnership account.
[MAJORITY — The CouRT]
The CouRT
instructed the jury that, if they believed from the evidence that Tucker, at the time he sold and delivered the groceries to Gullat, knew that they were for his separate use, he had no right to charge them to the firm without the assent of Scott. It would be a collusion. Bond v. Gibson Sf Jephson, Camp. N. P. Rep. 185.