{
  "id": 11272114,
  "name": "SUSSMAN LEWINSON, Plaintiff in Error, v. THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF ALBUQUERQUE, Defendant in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Lewinson v. First National Bank of Albuquerque",
  "decision_date": "1902-08-28",
  "docket_number": "No. 926",
  "first_page": "510",
  "last_page": "515",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "11 N.M. 510"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.M.",
    "id": 8835,
    "name": "Supreme Court of New Mexico"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 52,
    "name_long": "New Mexico",
    "name": "N.M."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "11 N. W. 303",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.W.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "12 Neb. 328",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Neb.",
      "case_ids": [
        4399033
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/neb/12/0328-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "31 Ohio St. 572",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ohio St.",
      "case_ids": [
        899768
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ohio-st/31/0572-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "33 Am. Dec. 684",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "Am. Dec.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "11 Am. Dec. 691",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "Am. Dec.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "9 Howard 91",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Howard",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "99 U. S. 46",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "weight": 3,
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "95 U. S. 347",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        3385297
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/95/0347-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "6 Wall. 231",
      "category": "reporters:scotus_early",
      "reporter": "Wall.",
      "case_ids": [
        3456058
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/73/0231-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "13 Mass. 149",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Mass.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "18 Johns. (N. Y.) 477",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Johns. Ch.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 432,
    "char_count": 7966,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.408,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.207966869300525e-08,
      "percentile": 0.32697022104377516
    },
    "sha256": "460c08ae79ae9650ae6e4aa87fc3b6d6d5b30e3ef11c6541358cc2ff125e3882",
    "simhash": "1:b867ae4dc2d26473",
    "word_count": 1401
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:33:31.770725+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Mills, C. J., McFie, Parker and Baker, JJ., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "SUSSMAN LEWINSON, Plaintiff in Error, v. THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF ALBUQUERQUE, Defendant in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "OPINION OF THE COURT.\nMcMillan, J.\nThe common-law rule of the liability of partners has been modified by statute in this Territory. The Compiled Laws of New Mexico, section 2943, provide as follows:\n\u201cSuits may be brought by or against, a partnership as such, or against all or either of the individual members thereof; and a judgment against the firm as such may be enforced against the partnership\u2019s property, or that of such members as have appeared or been served with summons; but a new action may be brought against the other members in the original cause of action. When the action is against the partnership as such, service of summons on one of the members, personally, shall be sufficient service on the firm.\u201d\nWe infer that in the action brought by the bank against the copartnership, process was served on the' defendant Lesser, although it dos not so appear as a fact alleged in the complaint in this action. The plaintiff had a right to prosecute his action in this manner, and the judgment recovered would be a lien upon and could be enforced against the partnership property and also against the property of the copartner Lesser. This action is to extend the lien of these judgments against the property of the copartner Lewinson by bringing suit upon the judgments and not upon the original cause of action. This can not be done. Under the-statute the defendant Lewinson. is entitled to his day in court, to present any defense which he may have to the original cause of action. Indeed the statute specifically provides that \u201ca new action may be brought against the other members in the original cause of action.\u201d In this action the defendant Lewinson could not present any defense to the original cause of action, and was left solely to present such questions in defense as might affect the jurisdiction of' the court and the regularity of the proceedings in the action in which the two judgments in question were recovered. Under our statute the default of an insolvent partner, by which judgment is recovered against his firm, can not cut off the right of defense on the merits of his solvent copartner in an action against him upon any claim made against the copartnership whereby it is sought to extend the lien of such judg-rnent to the individual property of the solvent partner.\nWe are, therefore, of the opinion that the first and second grounds of demurrer are well taken, and should have been sustained.\nThe judgment is therefore reversed, and the cause remanded to the district court, Bernalillo county, to be there proceeded with according to law.\nMills, C. J., McFie, Parker and Baker, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "McMillan, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "W. B. Childers for plaintiff in error.",
      "McMillan & Raynolds for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "[No. 926.\nAugust 28, 1902.]\nSUSSMAN LEWINSON, Plaintiff in Error, v. THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF ALBUQUERQUE, Defendant in Error.\nSYLLABUS.\n1. Under Comp. Laws N. M., section 2943, providing that a judgment against a partnership may he enforced against the property of members who were parties to the action, \u201cbut a new action may he brought against the other members in the original cause of action,\u201d a judgment rendered against a partnership, in an action to which only one of the members was a party, will not form the basis of a suit against the other member; the proper proceeding being \u201ca new action\u201d on the original cause of action.\nError to the district court of Bernalillo county, before J. W. Crumpacker, Associate Justice.\nReversed and remanded.\nW. B. Childers for plaintiff in error.\nThe right to sue and recover a judgment against a copartnership as such is purely statutory.\n15 Ency. PI. and Pr., 842-3; Compiled Laws New Mexico 1897, secs. 2894, 2895 and 2943.\nEven without a satisfaction, a judgment against one of tivo joint contractors is a bar to an action against the other.\nKing v. Hoare, 13 Mee and W. 504; Robertson v. Smith, 18 Johns. (N. Y.) 477; Ward v. Johnson, 13 Mass. 149; Cowley v. Patch, 120 Id. 138; Mason v. Eldred et al., 6 Wall. 231.\nBut the rule is otherAvise where the contract or obligation is joint and several.\nSessions v. Johnson, 95 U. S. 347 ; U. S. v. Ames, 99 U. S. 46; U. S. v. Price\u2019s Ex., 9 Howard 91; 2 Black on Judgments, sec. 776.\nA judgment against one partner is a bar to a subsequent suit against both.\n2 Black on Judgments, sec. 775; Smith v. Black, 9 Ser. and Rawle 142, 11 Am. Dec. 691 and note; Mole v. Hollins, 11 Gill & Johnston 11, 33 Am. Dec. 684; Wann v. McNulty, 43 Am. Dec. (Ill.), 58, and note.\nSee also 11 Ency. of PI. and Pr., 850-851 and notes; Leach v. Milburn Wagon Co., 15 N. W. (Neb.)\n\u2022 232; Bezell v. Belden, 31 Ohio St. 572; Pox v. Abbott, 12 Neb. 328, 11 N. W. 303.\nIf it be conceded that under our statute, Compiled Laws, sec. 2943, a new action may be brought against a member of the copartnership who has not been served with summons) or who has not appeared, it does not appear from any allegation in the complaint, that the plaintiff in error, Lewiston, was' not served with the summons, or that he did not appear in the action. Neither is the suit brought in the language of the statute, in the original cause of action.\nCompiled Laws, sec. 2943.\nTbe demurrer does not admit conclusions of law or any fact not well pleaded.\nU. S. v. Ames, 99 U. S. 46.\nAs to what is admitted by the demurrer, see full discussion in\nU. S. y. Ames, supra; 6 Ency. of PI. and Pr., 334-336 and notes.\nNecessary averments of the complaint are the facts which section 2943 of the Compiled Laws provides shall authorize the maintenance of the suit. The general demurrer was good.\n6 Ency. PI. and Pr., 315 and 316.\nOur code expressly authorizes a general demurrer .under such conditions.\nCompiled Laws, sec. 2685, subsec. 35, par. 6.\nBut the second ground of demurrer is specific, namely, that no action lies on the judgment alleged in the declaration. . Section 2943 of the Compiled Laws clearly states, that the action,.if any, is on the original cause of action.\nMcMillan & Raynolds for defendant in error.\nThe statutes of this Territory fully authorize a judgment against a partnership such as is the subject of the action in the court below.\nCompiled Laws of 1897, sec. 2943.\nA judgment against-a partnership being a joint and several obligation of the members of the firm, it may be made the basis of a suit against one or more of the members of the firm.\nCompiled Laws of 1897, secs. 2942 and 2946.\nAll authorities agree that the firm judgment establishes the individual liability of the members; the only open question being the identity of the members.\n15 Ency. of PI. and Pr., pp. 852 to 854 and cases cited.\nSTATEMENT OF THE CASE.\nThis action was brought by the First National Bank of Albuquerque, against Sussman Lewinson, as a member of the firm of Lesser & Lewinson, to recover upon two judgments in the same action, one for $3,200.50, recovered by said bank against Lesser & Lewinson on the fourteenth day of April, 1898; and the other for $111.89, recovered on the twenty-ninth day of August, 1899, for costs on proceedings in error. It appears that no part of either of said judgments had been paid, except the sum of $23.35; and that Lewinson is the junior member \u25a0of the firm of Lesser & Lewinson.\nPlaintiff prays judgment against defendant Lew-inson for the amount of said two judgments.\nDefendant demurs, first, because the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action; second, because the judgment\u2018sued upon does not constitute a cause of action against the defendant; third, because it appears upon the face of the complaint that the plaintiff has exhausted his remedy upon the original obligation and that it is merged in the judgment set up as a cause of action in this case; and, fourth, for other good and sufficient reasons appearing upon the face of the record.\nOn hearing, defendant\u2019s demurrer was overruled, and judgment rendered in favor of plaintiff and against defendant Sussman Lewinson for the sum of $3,605.56. Defendant thereupon sued out a writ of error from this court. The cause is now here for consideration."
  },
  "file_name": "0510-01",
  "first_page_order": 528,
  "last_page_order": 533
}