
    Frank Schulberg et al., App’lts, v. Jacob Gutterman et al., Resp’ts.
    
      (New York City Court, General Term,
    
    
      Filed May 18, 1894.)
    
    Evidence—Pabtnebship.
    The declarations of a party to the suit as to the existence of a partnership, are competent to charge and prove him to have been a member of such alleged firm.
    
      Abraham Levy, for app’lts; Jacob Barnett, for resp’ts.
   McCarthy, J.

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. Murray, 110 N. Y. 658; 18 St. Rep. 598; Cassidy v. Hall, 97 N. Y. 169. See De Cordova v. Powter, 16 St. Rep. 1006. The declarations of a party to the suit as to the existence of a partnership, are competent to charge and prove him to have been a member of alleged firm and who were admitted by him to have been the persons composing it. See Kipper v. Sizer, 2 St. Rep. 386. This testimony was important as corroborating the contentions of the plaintiff and should have been submitted to the jury for their consideration. Judgment is therefore reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to abide the event. Ehrlich, C. J., and Van Wyck, J. concur.  