The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1854-12-28
Supreme Court-General Term.
Before Mitchell, p. j., Roosevelt and uerke, ~.
OPINION PARrRERsBrP-IIABrLrTY or DORMANT
PARTNER.

9OYrem6 OOUht>AeCOCr0A I0fms
Before Mitchell, p. j., Roosevelt and Uerke, III.
OPINION PARrRERsB fP-IIABfLfrY or DORMANT
PARTNER.
Dnc. 2o-HarrisoR us. BcnHers.-One Of the questions
discussed in this case and the upon which the opn
len Of the Court il given, whether one could b
liable - . dormant partner, who had agreed with
another that such other should buy such lands ~ they
pleased in his and hA respon sibility
and that the first shall not be responsible for any a
btes acts Of the other, except that far the
capital should be placed in the hands Of the other that
The opinion Of the Court WAS delivered by
MITCHELL, jim Mass 42i, Pitts VS.. Waugh and
Greeley, note had been given by Waugh In his
name, for land bought in his name, and it held
that IL II found that there partnership
between Waugh and Greeley 10 buy lands, Greeley
would not b. haoIe. The reasons assigned were, that
the law, ~ to dormant partners, was confined To
trade and commerce. and did extend t. the
and sale Of lands and that the alleged dormant part
could have no title to the land. II is true he
would have title at law TO the land but lin this
State however il may have then been in Massachusetts,
he would have title in equity and could enforce IL to
the land. The Court also said that there sno evil
dence offered that Greeley knew of the purchase did
could desire any benefit from it," although they
adopted the broad grounds above stated they said to
prevent mistake. Here the dormant partner knew of
the purchases and then received the benefit Of them
The Massachusetts court would probably have
ruled differently il such facts had existed in that
They said that the contract not signed by any
authorized by Greeley; these acts would proba ply
nave Deeu them evidence OIL authority
sign and Of ratification OF the signature In Patterson
brewster, Ravens and others, a Edwd, 352 bill
was filed to compel who had associated for the
purpose OF purchasing lands and having the title in the
OF trustees, to pay the deficiencies bonds and
mortgages executed by the the seller OF the
an.--the trustees having become insovsnt The Vice
Chancellor inferred that the sale the personal
responsibility Of the trustees and the security
mortgages and held that II the associates would have
been liable, the taking of the bond of the ees Ia
higher security discharged them from this liability
and that court Of equity shoaid not interfere the
complainant II lie had any remedy, could enforce it at
law. The learned Vice Chancellor had, ho scver pre-
vicasly said in that that 1T appeared to him that
considering the object Of this association it 10
be deemed partnership in the mercantile sense Of the
term, with the rights powers, duties and responsible.
ties OF partners belonging to the associates under the
law merchant" that for the sake of convenience aud
The aser agemen OF all partnership concerns wbe
thcr II be in the trade of buying and selling merchun
disc, or manufacturing, or n the business Of working
lands either for agricultural mining pursuits
partner has the power 10 bind all by any
may make which within the scope Of their partner
ship business; but this caEnot be the law in the
business OF buying and selling lands' These
marks not essential to the decision of the case
and the cause carried to the Court Of Appeals;
and while it was pending there, Justice Strong in
delivering tho opinion-in the result Of which the
majority OF the Court concurreddissented from the
Vice Chancellor in the last part of his opinion and
stated that this opinion OF the Vice Chancellor
pressed doubt and partial denial only Coms 43O
Sage vs. sherman Justice Strong argued strongly in
that case that there may be partnership buying and
selling lands with ali the liabilities of the partners and
he quoted the Of Terrill Richards, Mott II
Act9rd 20 Sigourney Mann, Conn. II, Robinson,
McCrowder, McCord $40, Dudley vs.. LittleHeld,
ShePIey a., Brady Kalkam, Penn. r. l47 Kramer
Arthur Bars Penn Il. 1885, sustaining his views
Where there is such diversity Of opinion and decision
binding IN this State it Is III expedient to OPT
non1unnecessary in the before 1t may be that
when four persons agree to bny lands tenants
in common and to pay cash for them the delivery OF
the deed neither buyers sellers would consider either
buyer liable to pay than his aqnot share; yet if
all did not pay in full II is very clear that the seller
would not be bound to convey to any And il the sale
to be partly credit, is equally clear that
cordng TO the established usages the buyers wo ud be
expected to give their joint and several bonds and
cages on the whole property for the whole amount lett
unpaid. SO 1t may fairly be discussed whether where
parties to buy and sell lands to share the po
fits, purchase made BY OF them without the appr0
baton OF the Others and without their receiving any be-
neft from it, would bind them las they would bound
II the agreement had related to merchandise the
ground that the purchase within the scope Of the
general terms OF this partnership. But in this the
plaintiff presents himself IN very different charac-
ter He was cl r employed through the active
ciates to keep the books Of the containing the
accounts Of sales and purchases and attending to other
matters necessary the transaction Of the business
into which the associates had entered. Their
be better (as against HIM than il they had
the lands to be conveyed 10 them, and had become
tenants IN common OF the lands As tenants in
neither could bind the other by any contract which he
alone should make; but ii tenants common have one
agent whore business is collect their rents and pay
out expenses far repairs taxes assessments clerk hr.
and Office rent and the whole affair should out
l"ss, his right 10 for that loss and for his
vices would be against all Jointly and not against each
separately, for his proportonate share only IA this
Ia Hike lands held by for mining purposes For
any matter connected with those purposes partner
may bind the other and all Jointly bound although
il might be questionable whether they would be bound
Jointly for the purchase money of other lands bought
Tor the same purpose, without proof Of their assent 10
the new purchase. So, although the part Of a
fhip are tenants in common and not partners yet they
are jointly liable for repairs End supplies the vessel
and for the OF the master and and they
he liable az partners by arrangements themselves
SO that one shall have lien the share III other
part funds in his hands for any balance due
him. See 20 j. r.. Gil, Mumiord Ncoll This ella m
is not for purchase of lands bought without
concurrence Of the associates but for mercantile
vices necessary for ALL and rendered for the benefit of
all the associates IN purchases and sales for their
joint benefit. The judgment in OF the plaintiff
affirmed, with costs
Before Hon. Judges Roosevelt, Morris and CIerke.
THE CASE OF DIR. GRAHAM.
Die. 27.-ln the matter of Robert NJ Graham convict
ed OF the mansaughter of Col oring at the st. Nco-
las Hotel and which stay of proceedings had been
granted the District Attorney moved that the stay OF
proceedings be vacated, because the prisoners conn
sci bad not served him with copy Of the bill Of excep
tons.
The Court adjourned the matter until Wednesday
next in consequence OF the absence OF the of
DR.. Graham.
Supreme COurt-GcncrnI Term.
Before all the Judges.