Warner v. Allee — 1 Del. Cas. 570

Majority

p. 570

WARNER et al. v. P. ALLEE, Administrator of Jonathan Allee, and GEORGE P. DAINS.

Court of Chancery. Kent.

August, 1818.

Clayton’s Notebook, 75.^[1]

Bidgely for complainants.

The confession of Dains avoids the-plea of Statute of Limitations. So does the payment in 1813.. Whitcomb v. Whiting, Doug. 629. Jackson v. Fairbank, 2 H.Bl. 342. As to the equities of this case, P. Allee stands in the-shoes of his intestate.

Hall for Allee.

Where defendants sever [al], the answer of one cannot affect the others. This is not like the cases cited. There the partnership continued when the payments were made; here it was dissolved by the death of Jonathan Allee, when the-last payment was made. In 8 Cranch, one late partner admitted that he had not paid a debt; held not sufficient to take the case-out of the Statute, for perhaps the other had.

This case is like Whitcomb, etc., Doug, 629, and 2 H.B1. Complainant too has equities. Heath v. Percival, 1 Str. 403. Allee ought to have called Dains to account.

Decree for complainants.