In Martinoff, as here, only one partner was served and there was no showing whatsoever that any other partner intended to appear or that the general appearance entered for the partnership was authorized or ratified by any other partner. The court relied on the general rule that one partner has no implied authority to enter an appearance for a copartner.
Summary of this case from Promotus Enterprises, Inc. v. JiminezDecided April 18, 1963
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED
In Martinoff, as here, only one partner was served and there was no showing whatsoever that any other partner intended to appear or that the general appearance entered for the partnership was authorized or ratified by any other partner. The court relied on the general rule that one partner has no implied authority to enter an appearance for a copartner.
Summary of this case from Promotus Enterprises, Inc. v. JiminezIn Martinoff, the partnership was sued on an alleged tort liability and, as in the instant case, only one partner was served.
Summary of this case from Promotus Enterprises, Inc. v. JiminezFull title:MARTINOFF v. TRIBORO ROOFING CO. — (BR, JM, HS, SE, AS)
Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Date published: Apr 18, 1963
Therefore, Vets North sought to enforce the judgment against the individual partners by commencing this…
Sugarman v. GlaserInasmuch as all of the partners were before the court, the inclusion of G.A.L. as a named defendant neither…