126 Mich. 185 | Mich. | 1901
(after stating the facts). Two defenses; are interposed:
1. That the account sued upon was not a partnership debt-
2. That plaintiff cannot maintain the action, because he was not a party to the agreement between Pinch and Robinson when the partnership was dissolved.
We think there is testimony tending to show that it was a partnership account. That was the only question submitted to the jury, and they have settled it in favor of the plaintiff.
Defendant was liable as a member of the firm, and no-doubt could arise as to plaintiff’s right to recover as against the members of the firm. The declaration in
Judgment affirmed.
