Schulberg v. Gutterman

This was an action brought against the defendants for goods sold and delivered. The defendant Younger-man did not defend, but made default, and the defendant Gutter-man appeared and answered in effect a general denial. The defendant Youngerman was the son-in-law of Gutterman, and question principally contested was that of the alleged partnership. One of the plaintiffs, and another witness testified to statement made by Gutterman admitting the partnership and bis liability for the goods in question. This Gutterman denied and said : “ I have never at any time been in the collecting business with any one in my life. Mr. Youngerman was at no time a partner of mine in business,” and absolutely denied the statements testified to by plaintiff and his witness. On rebuttal oneYriedlander was called on behalf of plaintiff, and among other questions asked was the following: Q. Did you have any dealings with Jacob Gutterman and Joseph Youngerman, the firm of Gutterman & Youngerman ?' Defendant’s counsel objects. Objection sustained. Plaintiff excepts. Q. Did Mr. Jacob Gutterman at any time buy or tell you that it was all right for you to ship goods to the firm of Gutterman & Youngerman at Goldsboro, North Carolina, because he was a partner ? Defendant’s counsel objects. Objection sustained. Plaintiff excepts. We think this was error, for here was evidence contradicting the defendant and to show- that he claimed, represented and held himself out.to the world as a partner of Younger-man in this business. In action to charge defendants as co-partners, the partnership may be establishe4 as well by circumstances, declarations, admissions and conduct, as by direct proof. Rogers v.