
    William P. Tibbs and Thomas Blanc v. Parrott.
    In an action for goods sold by Tibbs & Company, the plaintiffs must prove themselves to be the firm of Tibbs & Company.
    Assumpsit for goods sold and delivered. On the trial of he issue of non assumpsit, Mr. Mason, for the defendant, moved the Court to instruct the jury that they must be satisfied that the contract was made with the plaintiffs, Willjám P. Tibbs and Thomas Blanc. The deposition of the only witness on the part of the plaintiffs, says the goods were sold for an'd on account of William P. Tibbs and Company.
    
    
      Mr. Jones, for the plaintiffs,
    contended that it is not necessary for the plaintiffs to prove themselves to be partners, unless upon a plea in abatement.
    The Court stopped Mr. Mason in reply, and said the law is too plain to require further argument. The plaintiffs must satisfy the jury that the contract was made between the plaintiffs and defendants. The deposition having only stated that the goods were sold by William P. Tibbs & Company, the jury must be satisfied by evidence that the house of William P. Tibbs & Company, consists of the plaintiffs, William P. Tibbs and Thomas Blanc. The plaintiffs took a bill of exceptions.
   Verdict for defendant. New trial granted, on the ground of surprise, that the Court should require such evidence. See the case of Woodward & Co. v. Sutton & Mandeville, at Alexandria, November term, 1806.  