New Orleans Republican., 1873-01-30

Y TEIT -
premises, and refuses to allow the company
to carry out their contract. Wherefore
they pray for Judgment for the above
amount, with eight per cent interest from
judicial demand The case was fixed for
hearing on the seventh of February.
State ex rel W. w. johnson VS.; Y. x.
Duvigneaud-Appeal prayed toE by Sc
spondent was refused.
second District Genre.
The following SUGGESTIONS have 1+eH
opened in this court: Succession OF flerre
Ducrss: succession of Mrs. Coralie fortler.
Fourth District Genre.
In this court, in the case of Williams.
Black & Co. VS.. Spencer Field, Jr., and %.
O. Bell, Judge Lynch has rendered the 1oi-
lowing decision:
On the first of August, 1869, spencer
Field, Jr., formed a commercial copartntf
ship in the city Of New Orleans 1or the
purpose of dealing ia coal; that eopartner-
ship continued till July 1. 1871, when II
was dissolved by mutual conseut. A Few
weeks prior 10 the dissolution ". ". He'll
left New Orleans by steamship on pleas
ure trip TO New York. He drank freely
during the voyage, and after his arrival IN
that city found hlmsc!f onS OF iuhH., ana
applied to the plaintiffs, Williams, Black
< Co., who lent him money st
different times during the month of
June 1871, for the payment
of which he gave draft fOr the sum OF
S7O7. dated New York, June %, 1871, pay
able at sight to the ordeS Of plaintiffs, drawn
on the Southern Bank of New Orleans. il
which, Bell said, his firm kept their account
To the draft he affixed the partnership
name of Field s. Bell" The draft was
presented at the bank, and payment thereof
refused On the grould that Field II Bel!
had ne funds in the institution, whereupon
the draft was protested, and this action
was instituted for II. amount against FIELD
& Bell IN SoliGO.
There is no doubt az 20 the loan of The
money by Williams Black N Go. to Bell.
as alleged. The only point 20 be deter
mined in the case is whether any liability
attached 10 the late firm of Field q Bell,
now in liquidation for the payment OF the
draft given By Bell in the name of the
partnership OF which he was member
Mr. Black, one of the plaintiffs, testlles
| that at the time of advancing the money 10
| Walter Bell he was very particular to ask
| Bell whether be was a member of the firm
| of Field & Bell. and whether it was 10 be
| continued. Bell replied that he was mem
| Der of the firm, and that it was to be con
| tinued without any change. Black did not
know why Bell was in New York, and did
not ask him why he was there. 1t was
| through Black that the money was adj
| vanced He knew nothing Of the fact as to
the money being for the use of Bell indi-
| vidually. He did not know that Bell
! had no business in New York, or
| that he was on a drunken spree, until
! Bell was about leaving. He never knew
| the firm of Field & Bell only by reputation.
| He knew Bell since the latter was IN the
| New Orleans Postoffi e before the war, and
| their more intimate acquaintance began
during the war. Black always regarded
Bell highly, and thought him very reliable
| There was no inquiry made by Black as to
| the use which Bell was to make OF the
| money, no questions asked as to whether 1t
was or WAS not to he used for the firm of
| Field & Bell, or that Bell made any repre-
| sentatious of fraudulent nature to induce
| the New York firm to lend him the money
| Bell, in his evidence, says that he had
| known the plaintiffs for many years; that
| he used the money borrowed from them fnr
| his private expenses; that he got the
| money without reference 90 business IN any
| shape: that no part of the amount borrowed
! went to the use or benefit Of the firm OF
| Field & Bell; that the firm of Eis Id s. Bell
! lad no business in New York at that time,
or at any other place outside the State OF
Louisiana; that the plaintiff. knew the
| money was not for partnership purposes
and that such question was never ask' d.
that the money was loaned without askln.
questions; that he drc@ the draft and re
ceived all the consideration therefor.
| Spencer Field, Jr., says that he does not
know either OF the plaintiffs, and the firm
had no business transactions out OF. the
State of Louisiana; that the firm derived
no benefit from the obligation sued upon;
he never knew the draft was drawn until
after the partnership was dissolved.
Numerous authoriti s were cited by the
learned counsel of plaintiffs to bring home
to the firIn of Field s. Bell the liability
claimed to belong to them i'll this matter
1 ha ma
Field & Bell, are bound III sDlidO, because
it was a commercial copartneTsnip, and
Field would be liable for the whole debt
The court knows very well the resp0nsi-
bility attaching to partnerships OF this kind
from acts done by their individual mem
bers as their representatives. There exists.
| however, sine qua non to such RESPONSE
bitv, and it is that an obligation when
contracted by one partner must, to bind
the arnership. be for the partnership
that the use or Endorsement of the signature
oflhe firm Icy one of the parties to have effect
or authority must be made III partnership
tran nsaCtiOn- contrary dOctrlue would be
mOnstrOus aud subVersive OF all ass0Gla-
tions OF this kind. That a member of a
commercial firm in New Orleans could alb
sent himself to the far distant city Of New
York merely to indulge in drunken de-
bauch, aHd bis partner. who remained at
home attending to business, should be
bound 10 pay the cost OF the alcoholic de-
coctiOns Of the absentee, is proposition
which a court of justice can not sanction,
and yet this is virtually what the plaintiffs
claim in this suit.
Il is to be regretted that Williams, Black
& Go. should lose the money which they IN
good faith gave 90 Bell. but tkey trusted
him without having taken proFer precau-
| tons to ascertain, as they were bound to
! do, whether or not Che loan was for the use
| OF Yield & Bell, and was likely to insure to
their benefit. Sield, an innooeat party,
can not be compelled 20 make good TO the
plaintiffs the money they 30 imrrudentls y
gave ~ their acquaintance. Bell. bet
thsre be Judgment Iisnissing plaintiff. '!e-
mand, with costs.
81. LYNCH, ,'Gage.
! Fifth District CeUrs.
Nrs. Chattie Green W.. A. c. Green. her
Observation-Disclosures vas rendered III this
suit in favor of plaintiff granting divorce