The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1853-09-13 00:00:00

LECTURE, YESTERDAY.

The fourth lecture of the series was given in the Cham-
ber of Commerce, yesterday, at one o'clock, on which occa-
sion the chair was occupied by
Mr. EDWARD HEATH, who opened the business by
stating his conviction that the value of the lectures was
not to be estimated by the limited nature of the attendance;
and he expressed a hope that Mr. Levi would not be dis-
couraged at the apparent apathy displayed. He felt as-
sured that the merchants of Liverpool would evince their
sense of the important nature of the lectures, when. they
should have an opportunity of perusing them at leisure,
which they would do, as he (the chairman) understood
they were about to be published.

Mr. LEVI then proceeded to say that in the preced-
ing lecture he had endeavoured to show the principles
on which the law assumed partnerships to be formed,
and in some degree to point out the rights and the
liabilities of partners. He then went on to say, that
partnerships are generally constituted under special
contract, by which each partner acquires a determinate share
of right in the profits. In the absence of any contract,
the assumption was, that all the partners had an equal
interest in the partnership; and this, he said,. would-apply
where one individual partner supplied the whole of the
capital, while the other supplied only the labour. Where
contracts did not exist, however, entries in the books of
the firm would be found equally suitable in defining the
relative shares of each partner, with reference tothe others.
By the law of Scotland, an equality of partnership is not,
he said, assumed ; and hi France and Spain the assumed
relative position of the partners is regulated by laws pe-
culiar to each of the countries. In all cases it is provided
that the interest in profits can only be ascertained after
the losses have been provided for. In transactions with
third parties, each partner is looked on as the accredited
agent of the others. He possesses, said he, an equal right
to dispose of the partnership property, by sale, or by
pledging. He can effect assurances on that property, and
can act in cases of bankruptcy, or of negociation, unless
there be a special restriction in the contract, or by agree-
ment, against his doing so. A partner, however, can only
bind his co-partners in a single transaction ; and in case
of drawing a bill of exchange, it must be endorsed in the
true style, and by the ordinary designation of the firm,
otherwise the partnership is not bound by it. If a partner
draw a bill in the name of his firm, even if in discharge
of his own debt, that would prima facie form a binding do-
cument, unless a case of collusion could be established; but
if collusion or fraud between the parties could be estab-
lished, then it would not be binding on the firm. Any
knowledge acquired by the party receiving the benefit
subsequent to the transaction would not invalidate the
document. A partner, however, is not at liberty to borrow
money in the name of the firm to raise capital for ori-
ginating that firm. If a partner in a firm wishes to avoid
liability, he can do so, but only by express and published
notice to that effect. A sale of goods by one partner to
another is held to be a sale, not from the individual to the
individual, but to the firm. Parties dealing with a firm
which has been changed in its constituents, and of which
change due notice has been given, are presumed to have
exercised the usual precautions fbr ascertaining who they
deal with, and they cannot afterwards fall back upon the
partners of the old firm as responsible. As an instance, he
might give the case of T. C. and his three sons, who carried
on business for a long time, but in 1835 T. C. died. After
this two of his sons set up another firm, and duly
ceased to have any interest in the
the other son, continued trade
u bill having been drawn on it,
previousg
a n zde rt e .(ti he thatol they
the drawer sought to recover against the other brothers ;
but they were held not liable, as it was considered by the
concern.d m
n had;
and m,
a
court the drawer should have made an inquiry as to who
he was dealing with. Co-partners may, he showed, be
bound by the acts of their partners even contrary to their
express declaration of non-responsibility—as in the case of
a coach-proprietary, where the firm had posted up notices in
all their places of business that they wouldnotberesponsible
for goods entrusted to them for carriage, above a certain
specified amount, unless particular conditions were com-
plied with. A woman, who was proved to be a partner,
agreed to carry goods and incur the responsibility con-
trary to the terms stated by the other partners ; and they
were found responsible for the damage sustained by those
goods, on the ground that she was a partner in the firm,
and that it was bound by her acts. He stated other cases
illustrative of such responsibility, but also showed that, if
It fair ground existed for believing that third parties were
in reality cognisant of specially restricted liability of any
one who had ceased to be a partner in a firm, the indivi-
dual so restricting his liability would not be held further
responsible. He also showed, by allusion to cases, that
individuals becoming managing partners in a firm cannot
convert the business of that firm to other objects than
those to which it was originally devoted ; neither can they
compel disapproving partners to receive back payment of
their capital, and so put them out of the firm. The law
of Scotland, as it related topartnerships, he said, was much
better than that of England, as it was a mixture of law
and equity. He next entered into a lengthened examina-
tion of the mode in which the Court of Chancery acts, in
reference to partnerships, and showed that it was dilatory
and expensive. He concluded by intimating that his next
lecture would take up the subject of dissolutions of part-
nerships; and intimated his readiness to answer any ques-
tions, or to clear up any misapprehension which might
have arisen in the course of his lecture.

A discussion ensued, in the course of which, in answer
to Mr. M`Fie, Mr. LEVI stated that, where 'no expressed
restriction as to the liability has been made public, the
responsibility of partners was understood in law to be of
the widest kind. He also said, in answer to a question,
that in an English firm, with a branch establisned at. Pa-
nama, the home partners would be under the operation of
the English partnership laws, while the Panama portion of
the firm would be under the Spanish law, unless the part-
ners abroad were also English, in which case all the parties
would fall under the operation of the English law.
The CHAIRMAN then proposed a vote of thanks to Mr.
Levi for his lecture and explanations, which was carried,
and the meeting separated.

AT TUE COLLEGIATE INSTITUTION, on Wednesday
evening, Mr. Levi gave the first of another series of lec-
tures on the same subject. The chair on this occasion was
occupied by the Rev. Mr. Howson, who, on introducing
the lecturer, said, that a knowledge of the main features of
commercial law ought to form part of a merchant's educa-
tion. In a recent tour on the continent he had visited
two large and flourishing schools of commerce, one at
Leipzig and the other at Paris. At the former the prin-
ciples of law and political economy, in connexion with
commerce, were systematically taught to young men in-
tended for business. At the latter the mercantile code of
France was regularly
„learnt by heart, and made the basis
of farther comment. In England we had no mercantile
code, though some codification was evidently desirable ;
and no one bad contributed more towards this result than
Mr. Levi, in his great work on the " Commercial Law of
the World," for which he had received the most honour-
able acknowledgments from the Governments both of
Austria and Prussia. The purpose of lectures such as
these was not to make a lawyer of every merchant. If
the gentlemen present were so unfortunate as to get into
lawsuits, they would, no doubt, find. it needful to call in
the aid of a legal adviser; but, perhaps, the necessity for
many lawsuits might be avoided by a little previous know-
ledge, just as a little attention to exercise, sleep, tem-
perance, &c., might make it unnecessary to call in the
doctor. Mr. Levi then referred to the early systems of
legislation of the Greeks and Romans ; to the legis-
lation of the Italian States, and of France ; to the
Consulato del Mare, and other maritime codes. He com-
pleted his review by comparing the present state of the
law throughout the continent and America, and afterwards
enumerated the countries which were subject to the law
of England, concluding by an epitome of the lectures
ili-
-ou4c t 9 Mi§titutc thB Ccurgcs