The Copiah signal. (Hazlehurst, Miss.) 1882-1883, 1882-12-01

men,. Tue p.oof shows that it was
discretionary with plaintiffs to fill
the bills and ship the goods or not,
up to the time Of doing 90. It is
admitted that Nelson was Q silent
partner before the dissolution. Mel.
con lived some 16 miles in the eoun-
try and had nothing to do with the
business during this ,ecret' partner.
ship. Miller che agent Of the plain.
tiff testines that before going TO He.
zlehurst. he was informed BY anoth-
or travelling agent. that Nelson was
. partner. other proof tends 70 show
that at the time the order was given
or Just bsfore, that Hurlbut informed
Miller that he bad no partner, which
Miller denies. bat II 10 not important
TO determine whether this was 20 or
not These arc tho important facts
admitted - proven necessary to be
considered.
Several questions are presented
for determination.
First as to the time the dissolution
actually took place. I Am inclined to
the opinion that it was on the and
OF August, at that time the accounts
were changed, and Nelson charged as
othor customers. It does not clear
ly appear Of what time the inventories
Of tho stock Of merchandise. and in
debtedness were closed and amount
ascertained, tho time Of the dissolu-
ton depended upon the understand.
ing Of the parties, and not when tho
settlement was made, and from what
was done I infer that the agreement
was that il should take effect on the
lst day Of August, which Was on
Sunday. but il mistaken in that it
certainly did on the 18th Of August.
The order was given on tho Bird, II
the diss ,luiion took place on the 1st
Of August, then regarding the order
a. the date Of the contract for the
purchase Of the goods, II did not
occur until after the dissolution, bat
| I am satisfied that tho order was on
lya proposition to purchase, and
which was not completed until it's
acceptance. by the shipment OF tho
goods and mailing tho letter With the
bills on the 7th OF September mp 10
that time it vas an unacccptsd prop
osition to purchase aud an incomplete
sale and plaintiffs might at any time
have declined. So that the dissolu-
ton must 10 held to have taken
place before the purchase OF the
goods. The only remaining question
is, was Nelson required to give no.
tice to plaintiffs Of tho dissolution
or to give general notice as requir.
ed OF an ostsnsible or known part
ner.
1t is well settled that silent part
ner is not required to give . general
notice. but il required to give notice
to former dealers. It Is not claimed
that plaintiffs wcro former dealers,
but it is claimed that they had notice
before the contract that Nelson vas
a PAL tner, and that having this no.
tice though from Q third party. that
Nelson was bound to give notice. A
silent or dormant partner is presum.
ed to know who the dealers arc, and
hence it is his duty to give the notice
and also 10 give it 10 oil dealers WHO
may have known that he was . part
her. and which knowledge WAS known
to the silent partner. in such case he
ceases 10 DO . dormant partner and
will be treated as known partner.
but where this knowledge does not
exist, it would be imposs IDLE for the
partner to know to whom to give
notice, and therefore hs Is relieved
from Il. The proof iu this case fails
to show that Nelson know any thing
about PLAINTIFF agent being informed
that he was . partner. or anything
in regard toit. When the authority
relied upon BY plaintiffs counsel arc
considered they have no application
to this case. Tue ouly authority on
this point is the recent case Of b ,yd
Va Ricketts, & Blister decided by our
own Supreme court. which is not an
authority against the rule stat ed
In that case proof was offered to
chow that the plaintiff bad been in
formed that defendants were part.
MFRS, the court holds, and properly
so that TO establish the partnership
this evidence was incompetent but
that the plaintiff. IS part Of bis
chain Of evidence might introduce it
and that a. such il was not hcarsay
testimony. bad the proof gone further
and shown that the defendant knew