The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1878-02-07
Di.solut.on OF rpartnership.-.sotiec

Seddon IL Bruce, Jones Br0theTS &c TO-, ana
81 s7.j !. IL. MorTiss d Co.. against r. E. No.
land Is Co.. In the Circuit Court of Rich.
naos,d, Judge Barton presiding. A
These eases, tried together by one Jury,
occupied four days, during which important
practical questions respecting the laws oi
partnership were discussed, upon authority,
.by Messrs. j. III. Dooley and j. NJ. Gregory
for the plaintiffs, and Messrs. a. NJ Kelley
and John Lyon for defendants.
Before the argument upon the facts began
the Judge instructed the Jury respecting
the law rs follows:
/. II the Jury believe from the evidence
that P. T. Noland and }. c. Smith were
partners, under the name Of p. f. Noland q
Co., and had been dealing with the plain
tiffs while snch partners, and that the plain
tiffs continued to sell goods after the al-
legged dissolution Of the partnership on the
1st Of January, 1877, without notice being
given to them of such dissolution, and
without knowledge or information thereof.
but in good faith and upon the credit Of j.
C. Smith as one of the partners, then the
plaintiffs are entitled to recover in this ac-
tion for the price and value OF such goods
so sold by them, although the Jury may be-
lieye from the evidence that the partnership
had in fact been dissolved, and that the de-
fendant, P. T. n GLAND, was solely interested
in the business
2. The plaintiffs cannot recover in. these
actions Ii the jury believe from The evidence
chat the partnership between P.F. Neland
and }. e. Smith had been dissolved pre-
Vious 10 the sales OF the goods for the price
and value OF which these actions are brought;
if they believe that the plaintiffs had at the
49, - HAfN ,,n1, IN,
formation or knowledge, however derived,
defendants, nor either OF them, had pub
lished such dissolution in the newspapers,
or given public notice thereof By any OF the
means usually adopted for that purpose.
8. That such notice or information to, or
knowledge by the plaintiffs Of such disso-
luton may be proved by direct evidence or
by the proof Of circumstances which will
establish the fact OF such notice, informa-
ton, or knowledge.
Verdicts were found for the plaintiffs,
and motions for new trials entered about
midnight Of last Monday. On Tuesday the
Judge, oyerruling said motions, delivered
the following opinion in writing:
Jones Brothers d Go. Us. Z. f. NoLand d
Co.; j. e. Norris d Co. Us. Same; Sed-
don G Bruce Us. Same. Upon a Motion
for Ne,o Trial.
In these cases there was undoubtedly evi-
dence for the defendant, j. C.. Smith, tend
ing to show and standing by itself sufficient
to show full knowledge on the part OF one
or more Of the firms, plaintiffs, OF the fact
Of the dissolution OF the firm Of P. f. No
land d Co. by the withdrawal OF J. G.. Smith
on the 1st of January, 1877. There was
evidence, however, on the part OF the
plaintiffs OF the opposite character. The
weight OF the conflicting evidence was par
ticularly within the province OF the jury to
determine; and the preponderance on either
side was not sufficient to justify the Court
in interfering with the decision OF the jury.
The case seemed to me to have beer clearly
this: That j. G.. Smith, being n partner,
withdrew on the 1st of January, 1877, and
that the firm was in fact dissolved on that
day.
The jury have found in all these cases
that the plaintiffs had no knowledge OF such
dissolution while the dealings which are
the subjects OF investigation in these causes
were going on. The law in such case is
we'll settled. That the retiring partner is
bound to give notice OF bis withdrawal to
customers, and il he fails to do so and they
stAS
faith that he is member, and loss must
happen to one or the other, it should fall
on the one who has, however innocent
ly, been negligent in not doing that which
he ought to have done to relieve himself
from liability. There is nothing in these
cases to impeach the integrity and good
faith of J. c. Smith; on the contrary, the
whole evidence shows that he acted in good
faith and with the purpose OF doing a kind.
ness to others. He has nothing to regret
in the transactions except the pecuniary
loss he has sustained, so far as these cases
show, by an orer-confidence in other per-
sons whom he wished to befriend, leading
him to negligence in not taking the steps
necessary for his protection.
l think the law requires that the motion
to set aside the yerdicts and grant new
trials should be overruled.