| Ind. | Oct 28, 1850
Howard sued James S. and Samuel A. Thompson, in assumpsit, before a justice of the peace. Verdict and judgment, before the justice, for the defendants, for 6 dollars and 38 cents.
The plaintiff, by certiorari, took the cause to the Circuit Court.
The following is the cause of action:
“ Sullivan, January 25th, 1844.
“ James S. Thompson and Samuel A. Thompson, debtors to Sanders M. Howard.
“Boarding from the 11th of June, 1843, till
the 6th of December, at $1 50 per week,- • • • $75 68
“ Family board,............................ 3 00
“ Horse feed,............... • • ............. 3 00
“ One pair martingales,............■......... 50
“ One pair wrappers,....................... 1 00
“ Turpentine,.............................. 25
“ Seven months’ washing,................... 7 00
$90 43”
The defendants put in a claim on a judgment for 17
In the Circuit Court, at the October term, 1844, the death of James S. Thompson, one of the defendants, was suggested.
At the April term, 1845, the parties appeared, and the Court reversed the judgment of tire justice.
At the April term, 1846, the parties appeared, and the cause was tried. Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff for 12 dollars and costs.
On the trial, the plaintiff proved that the defendants Samuel A. and James S. Thompson, boarded with the plaintiff from the month of June, 1843, to the first week in December of that year; and that, during that time, they, the defendants, were partners in the practice of medicine. The plaintiff also proved that a Mr. Coffin’s family came on a visit to the defendants, and stayed a day and night at plaintiff’s house. He also proved that boarding, during said time, was worth a dollar and a half a week. There was also proof that the plaintiff let the defendant, James, have a pair of martingales and a pair of leggins; and that, whilst the defendants boarded with the plaintiff, his family washed for them.
That was all the plaintiff’s evidence; and there was no other tending to prove his case.
The cause presents but one question, and that is, whether the Thompsons, who were partners in the practice of medicine, were liable, as such partners, to any of the items of the account proved, and we are clearly of opinion that they were not. There was no joint contract proved. The mere fact that the defendants were partners in the practice of medicine, does not render them jointly liable for the expenditures of each other having no connection with their partnership business as physicians.
The judgment is reversed with costs. Cause remanded, &c. Costs here.