US SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

Where the question before the jury was whether or not one of the defendants was a partner in a commercial firm, it was proper for the court to exclude the declarations made by the defendant in the absence of the plaintiffs. chanrobles.com-red

Page 61 U. S. 126

It was also proper not to confine the attention of the jury to declarations made at one particular time in the presence of one of the plaintiffs, but to allow all similar declarations to be given in evidence, so that the jury could judge of the entire question of the existence of the partnership.

It was an action of assumpsit, brought by Patten and Lane, merchants of New York, against the plaintiffs in error, merchants of Fort Wayne, Indiana. The only question in the court below was whether or not Swinney was a partner of Teller, the declaration counting upon four promissory notes signed by Thomas B. Teller & Co. Under the instructions of the court, a verdict was found for the plaintiffs. The substance of the bills of exception is stated in the opinion of the Court.

The case was submitted on a printed argument by Mr. Crawford for the plaintiffs in error, and argued by Mr. O. H. Smith for the defendants.