The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1885-11-11
One Partner Cannot Bind Another by
n Scaled Vote.

George r. siblcy & Co. of Augusta, Georgia,
brought suit against Young " Napier, nler,,
chants ct Troy; on three notes OF a thousnnJ
dollars each. Mr.. Young In his answer denied
having any information or knowledge Of the
making of the notes. but demanded strict
proof Of the same and set up q counter claim.
1t will lie remembered That Young u NAPIER
made an assignment nearly two years ago.
Mr.. Samuel o. Young, one Of the partners, Is
II weil-to.do farmer. whose property Will be
held liable for the debts of the firm, and the
debts are by no means light. At the last term
Of the Court Judgment was sought to be OBJ
tanned against him upon the notes In ques.
ton. Judgment had already been obtained
against his partner Mm; II; NaP,her. n,Ma;eS SSrS:
MesSrS. Sibley 4 Co., and MeSSrs. BeNet q
Smith and S. G. CaSon were counsel for >. o.
Young. When the plaintiff rested his case
Mr.. Bcnet moved for Il non.Snit on the follow.
Ing grcund--because the complaint alleged
that the notes were promiSs0,y notes, whereas
the evidence showed that the notes were I'M
der seal, and that the firm name had been
signed to them by Napier, and not by Young !;
that therefore Young was not liable TO pay
these notes.
Judge Wallace at first seemed to consider
that the seal was surplusage inaSmuch as q
partnership caunot usually execute a sealed
only promissOry notes.
Counsel for defence then submitted authori-
ties from the Law Reports OF South Carolina,
which established the doctrine that q sealed
ltlSk ~ W. ps'S
one memhe of II partnership firm Is binding.
as q scaled instrument against the partner so
signing, but Is null and void us TO his co-part-
ncrs.
After argument on the other side by Mr.:
Perrin and Mr.. COthran, the Judge granted
the non-sult
In the afternoon of the same day Messrs
Perrin d COthran moved to set aside the non
suit on the ground that as 1t was In evidence
that Mr.. Young had acknowledged his liabill.
ty on the notes, 1t was a question for the jury,
whether lie knew they were scaled notes or
not. Judge Wallace at once saidt that had that
fact been called to his attention In the morn
ing he would not have granted the non-sult;
! and he therefore set aside the non-sutt.
The case then went back to the jury. Evil
dcnce for the defence showed that Mr.. Young
did not know the notes were sealed; that hC
had not authorized Napier TO execute them
and that he did not ratify the making OF
them. Counsel for both stiles argued the facts
before the jury, and the judge delivered q
learned charge on the law In which he held
that it is not within the scope of partnership
business to execute sealed Instruments; that
sealed instruments can he executed by q part
ncrShip, but that they are binding only when
express or implied authority has been prevl.
OuSly given, or when the subsequent acts OF
the O-partncrS amount to Il ratification or the
making of the sealed instruments; that a seal
ed instrument with Il firm name is binding as
such upon the partner who signs 1t, but IS not
binding upon his co partner, unless such CO.
partner previously authorized or subsequent
iy ratified the making Of the scaled instru-
ment.
The jury retired and in q short time found
the following verdict: 1--WE find for the dc.
PENDANT, because he did not ratify the making
Of the sealed note"