The Cecil Whig. [volume] (Elkton, Md.) 1841-current, 1854-04-29
Legal Notices.
NOTICE.

llliaih Hlhlth, IN 'hahcerS, March
John D. Smith, ami 18th, 1881.
James Mackey,
ENlIE Object Of this suit is to compel the
Il said William Smith to account to and
With the late firm of '.Smith. Strickland \
Mackcy," Of which firm altthc parties hereto
were partners, for { ,rtan large sums ofmon-
ry. which the said William Smith obtained
from the conplainant for alledgci partnership
purposes, but which, he, th1 said William
smith, did not SO appropriate and now wrong
fully dntains; also to compel said William
Smith to account to and with the complainant
individually; and for discovery generally.
The Bill states that on or about the 2Gth
day Of July 1851, the sud Thomas Strickland
md the sail John d. Smith and James Mack
Sy, formed co-partncrship for the purpose
If trading i'll cattle, that the said Thomas
Strickland was TO furnish the necessary funds,
and that the said John d. Smith and james
Mackcy were to give their labor and services
in turthcring their joint undertaking, and that
they were To Share equally their profits or
losses. That business was commenced by
said parties, and WAS carried on by them I'M
Ter the name Of Thomas Strickland alone,
Hniil the 18Th of September Of same year,
when one William Smith Of New Castle coun-
ty, in the State of Delaware, by agreement
was taken into the said partnership, and that it
was then, by all the said parties stipulated
md agreed, that thcncetorth sud William
Smith should share one third Of TIE profits or
losses, the said John ID. Smith and James
Nackcy should together share one other
third, and that the remaining t"irl should be
the share Of the said Thomas Strickland, and
that thereafter the name Of the firm should be
.'Smith, Strickland (; Mackcy.' and that
they should do business under said name If
''Smith, Strickland X Mackcy' and under no
Of 10 am tjllti tltrth ,u.nr ~ Soi
parties that the said Thomas Strickland should
alone be authorized to bind the said firm by
signing the signature thereof, and that no
note. hrtft, c':nck or other obligation should
lie paid by said firm, unless the same was 50
signed by the said Thomas Strickland.
The Bill further stltrs that Immediately
thcrcupon the said William Smith entered
upon the business OF said firm, and from that
time represented that h. was Il partner in
said firm, and us such bought and sold divers
lots of cattle in the name Of the Partnership.
That on about the .3l of October in the
year aforesaid, the said John y. Smith and
james Mackcy withdrew from said firm by and
with the knowledge and consent Of the other
members thereof, leaving the complainant and
said William Smith. who continued to do
business together until the 9TH January 1852,
when they formally dissolved. That during
the continuance OF said partnership large nlul-
bcrS of cattle were bought and sold on ac-
count Of said firm Il particular account Of
which, together with IL full statement Of cX
pcnscs is flied with the Bill marked ..EX-
| Iiht 49, by which it appears that the profits
md expenses about balanced. And also that
while the said William Smith was a member
of said firm, although he never advanced any
| money whatever for said firm, he drew out f
the same for allyd-el partnership purposes Il
| lirwr sum OtmOMrv, trwit the sum Of So, 1885,
| 10. and that Of sad sum only Il small part
thereof, to wit, the sum OFFS ,23l Il has been
accounted for us clearly appears by reference
to stated account Of said William Smith witt
said firm. filed with said Bill.
, The Bill further states that the said Will
| liam Smith, although largely indebted to the
said firm, did institute salt against Your or.l~
tor and the said John d. Smith and James
| Macicy at the October Term 1852 of the Cir
| cult Court for Cecil county, upon certain
lapcr-wrtimg, allcdgcd to be Il promissory
note at Thirty days, drawn by the firm Of. }.
d. Smith, Strickland & Mackey'' in favor OF
| said William Smith and dated at Mechanics
vile on the 10th November 1891 for $1,000;
, but the Bill charges that the said pap"r-wrt-
ing. if given at all to the said William Smith
by amy one of the other partners in said firm,
was not so given by and with the knowledge
and consent of said Thomas Strickland; but.
if niycn at all. was delivered in contravcntion
of the agreement entered into 1T the time said
William Smith was admitted into said firm;
and that the said papcr-writing was given, if
at all, without Il valid considerations and that
it is not signed in the proper name Of the firm
as agreed upon in the outset 9th" partnership
operations, and that the signature thereto is not
in the handwriting Of the said Thomas Strick
land. And further that the sud Thomas
Strickland never saw nor heard Of, the said
papcr-w writing until suit was instituted thereon
as atoreSa and that the same is fraudulent
and therefore void.
lhc Bill thcu states that the said Thomas
Strickland hath frequently requested the said
William Smith rs well before the said suit
was instituted as afterwards, to settle his ac-
count with said firm and to pay over the bal
ancc due from him; but that the said William
Smith, combining and conirdcrating with the
said John D. Smith and james MAclcy and
with divers other persons, and contriving how
to wrong and niurc the said complainant in the
premises, absolutely refused, and still doth
refuse, to comply with said requests.
The Bill then prays that the several detrn-
dants may answer under oath, and that the
said William Smith may account with said
firm and also with the said Thomas Strickland
individually and for further and other relief:
and that an order adjudication may he grant
ed for the nonresident defendant, and writ
of subpoena for such other defendants as re-
side in Maryland.
1t is thercupon adjudged and ordered that
the complainant by causing Il copy Of this or
der to he inserted in some newspaper, pub
lishcd in Cecil county, once a week for one
month before the third day of May next, give
notice to the said absent defendant of the
substance and object of this Bill, and warning
him to appear in this Court in person, or by
solicitor, on or before the fifth day of August
next, to answer the premises, and shew cause
ii any he has, why a decree ought not to pass
as prayed ii. ii. MITCHELL, elk,
True copy. Test,