The Cecil Whig. [volume] (Elkton, Md.) 1841-current, 1854-04-15
M0yEEE.

Johh D. Smith, ana 18Th, le3l.
James Mackcy,
FgHuE object of this suit is to compel tho
Il said William Smith to account to and
with the late firm of ''Smith, Strickland {;
! Mackcy," Of which firm al the parties hereto
were partners, for certain large sums of mon
cy. which the said William Smith obtained
from the complainant for alleaged partnership
| purposes, III, which, he, the sud William
Smith, did not so appropriate and now wrong
fully dctaiHs; 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 10Th
day of July 1851, the said Thomas Strickland
and the sail John y. Smith and James Mack
ey, formed co-partnership for the purpose
/ OF trading il cattle, that the said Thomas
| Strickland was 10 furnish the necessary funds,
and that the said John D. Smith and james
Mac'icy were to give their Labor and services
in furtlicrlng their joint undertaking. and that
they were to shaf. equally their profits OF
losses. That business was commenced by
| said parties, and was carried on by them llli-
der the name Of Thomas Strickland alone,
until the 18th Of September Of same year,
when one William Smith Of New Castle coun-
| tv, in the Stlta Of Delaware, by agreement
was taken into the sail partnership, and that it
, was then, by all the said parties stipulated
and agreed, that t!lcncetorth said William
Smith Should share one third Of tie profits or
losses, The said John D. Smith and James
Mackey should together share one other
third, and that the rem lining third should be
the share Of the said Thomas Strickland, and
that thereafter the name Of the firm should be
''Snith, Strickland {: Mackey,' and that
they should do business under said name Of
s'Smit!i, Strickland 4 Mackey" and under no
other; and that il was further agreed by said
| parties that the said Thomas Strickland should
alone be authorized TO bind the said firm by
signing the signature thereof, and that no
n"te, draft, check or other obligation should
bc paid by said firm, unless tho same was SO
signed by the said Thomas Strickland
| The Bill further states that Immediately
| thereupon the said William Smith entered
upon Tie business of said firm, and from that
| timc represented that he was partner in
| said firm, ami as such bought and sold divers
| lots Of cattle in the name O. tae partnership.
! That on Or about the 23l Of October in the
| year aforesaid, the said John D. Saith and
james Mackey withdrew from said firm by and
| with the knowledge and consent Of the other
members thereof, Saving the complainant and
said William Smith. who continued to do
business together until the 18th january 1882,
| when they formally dissolved. That duriug
the continuance otsAid partnership urge num-
bers of cattle were bought and sold OH ac-
count Of said firm, a particular account Of
| which, together with Il full statement Of OK
pcnscs, is filed with tic Bill, marked elk
| hibit A. by which it appears that the profits
and expenses about balanced. And also tha,
while the said William Smith was a member
| OF said firm, although lie never advanced any
money whatever for said finn, he drew out OF
the same for allcdged partnership purposes IL
large sum ofmQncy, to wit, The sam of S., 49,
| TO- ami that of said sum only small part
| thereof, to wit, the SUN ofS4 ,23i has been
accounted for IFS clearly appears by reference
| to Il stated account ofSlil " i!liau Smith with
said firm, filed with s&.i Bill.
! The Bin farther states that the said Will
liam Smith, although largely indebted to the
| said firm, did institute suit against your ora
ter and the said John d. Smith and James
Mackey at the October Term 1852 of the Cir
cult Court for Cecil county, upon certain
| papcr-writins, alledged to be promissory
note at Thirty days, drawn by the firm of 81.
ID. Smith, Strickland 4 iackcy'' in favor Of
said William Smith and dated ut Mechanics
| vile on the 10th November 1851 for $1,000;
! but the Bill charges that the said papcr-writ-
| 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 given ut all, was delivered in contravcntion
| of the agreement entered into at the time said
| " ltltll SHllin WIS allHilttt INTO Sdlu lfln;
and that the said papcr-writing was given, if
at all, without Il valid consideration, and that
it is not signed IN the proper name Of the firm
| as agreed upon III the outset otthc partnership
Up rations, and that the signature thereto is not
il the hand writing Of the said Thomas S;ric!I-
Land. And further that the sud Thomas
Strickland lcycr saw nor heard Of, the said
papcr-writing until suit was instituted thereon
as aforesaid, and that the same is fraudulent
| and therefore voil.
The Bill then states that the sail 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 confcdcrating with the
said John ID. Smith and james Mackcy and
with divers other persons. and contriv.nor Low
to wrong and niurc the said com; ,iainant in the
premises, absolutely refused, and still doth
rctus,, to comply with said requests.
The Bill then prays that the several drfcn-
dants may answer under oath, and that the
said William Smith may account with said
firm and $50 with the said Thomas Strickland
individually and for further and other relief;
and that an order of publication may be grant
cd for the nonresident defendant, and a writ
of subpoena for such other defendants as re-
side in Maryland.
1t is therenpon adiudgcd and ordered that
the complainant BY causing Il copy of this or
der to be inserted in some newspaper, pub
lishcd in Cecil county, once 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
if any he has, why decree ought not to pass
as prayed. ii. il. MITCHELL, elk.