Hartung v. Siccardi — 3 E.D. Smith 560

Majority

p. 560

Hartung and Vilinore v. Siccardi.

Headnote

In an action for goods sold by two persons as partners, it appeared that they had together boarded with the defendant, and that each had told him “ that what one might call for would be the same as if both should order it.” Held, that the defendant’s account for liquors, etc., furnished to each, created a joint obligation against both, and constituted a valid counter claim to the plaintiff’s demand.

Appeal by the plaintiffs in an action for goods sold. The

p. 561

judgment which was rendered in one of the lower courts, allowed to the defendant the set off and counter claim referred-to in the above head note.

The counter claim was for board and lodgings, wines, liquors, segars, etc., furnished to the plaintiffs while they were boarding with the defendant, and the defendant proved that it was a joint obligation ; that Hartung told him to charge whatever they had to both of them, and Vilinore told him that what one ordered was the same as if both had ordered it, and that he therefore charged whatever they had against them jointly. A joint indebtedness was thus established in the defendants’ favor against the plaintiffs, which formed a good counter claim to the demand for goods sold to the defendants. * * * * *

The opinion proceeded to discuss other points. The discus-sion is omitted as of no interest apart from this case.

Judgment affirmed.