The enterprise. [volume] (Wellington, Ohio) 188?-1899, 1895-05-22


firing partner, William CrOsier, to trace
out each individual member Of the firm
of Cassidy s. McNeal, with which his
firm had dealt and see that actual notice
was brought to each member Of that firm
and If the jury found it otherwise 1t was
against the weight of the evidence. Con-
sidering the verdict rendered, we think
the jury must have found that McNeal
was former dealer with the firm OF IT,
W. CrOsier & Co., and that finding we
hold was against the weight OF the EVIL
dence.
This erroneous finding was perhaps
partly due to the charge of the court, and
in part of the jury. The court did not
define to the jury what would constitute
former dealer, with the firm Of George
W. CrOsier & Co., but left the jury to de-
tirmine as a question Of fact, whether
McNeal was to be treated as former
dealer with the old firm, or giving the
jury very much of guide undermining
that question.
And if the jury based their verdict up
on the finding that McNeal was former
dealer of the old firm of George W. CroS-
ier & Co., while William was member,
and that, therefore, it was incumbent
upon the retiring partner, William, to
give him actual notice of his retirement
from that firm, then the verdict is wrong
upon that proposition.
Again it is said that, during the years
1892 and 1893, especially 1892 when this
transaction took place William, was hold
ing himself out, so as to be chargeable
as partner as to third persons, dealing
with the firm of G. W. CrOsier q Co. 1t
true that George W. CrOsier & Co., was
the style of the firm while William was
a partner; it is true as we find that that
firm was dissolved in 1890; it is true that
George W. Crosier continued as between
him and William the business in the
same firm name; it is true that there
was some stationery and bill heads, used
while William was a member Of the firm,
left in possession of George W. CrOsier,
and that some of that stationery land but
small amount, according to this record
was used by George W. CrOsier, after the
partnership was dissolved, but there is
not particle Of proof that any of that
stationery, was used with the knowledge
of William, or with his sanction, or was
ever authorized by him in any way.
1t is true also that William owned, a
cheese factory in Pittsfeld; that George
W. CrOsier after the dissolution handled
the product of that factory; but he had
done so for long number of years, prior
to the formation of the partnership with
William, the same as they handled il
after the dissolution and during the ex
istence of the partnership between George
and William, and there is nothing in all
J this, that would justify any outsider in
, dealing with George W. CrOsier & Co..
after the dissolution, relying upon th(
fact that William was responsible for thu
obligations of that firm.
T Anybody could have found out accord
ing to this record, by the last inquiry
that William had attempted, at least Il
5 get out of the firm. George W. CrOsie
had been doing business there for NOR
than twenty years, William having III
connection or partnership with him. Ii
y 1888 William did 60 into partnership
s with him, which partnership continue,
0 to 1890 when William retired from tn
e firm, and the business was resumed pre-
r cisely as 1t had been prior to that time
!, so that upon the facts set forth in thi
d record we find that there was no ground
It upon which William should be he'll
t liable for this debt, and that the mOtio
r for a new trial should have been granite
: instead of Overruled.
y Exceptions were taken during til
It progress of the trial to the intrOductiO
il of certain testimony, which testimOn
It was allowed to go to the jury against tn
r objection of the defendant William Cros
70 ier. The objections were general sOm(
7, what and can be classified. | take
# that declarations of one partner, statt
ments of one partner after the dissOlu
j. tiOn were not competent to bind the Otht
C partner, unless authorized by him.
Ie think the court recognized that rule, an
n undertook to decide as to the cOmpetenC
"a of the testimony in view of that rul
But under the claims made, cOnsiderab
10 testimony was given to the jury, that u
l, timately should have no, or at least vel
IS little weight as against William, and
10 is barely possible, that there should hay
been some limit placed upon the effe,
i to be given to that testimony, by Il
Iy court in the charge to the jury, but
i'd the main the line of rulings, the ruling
70 of court upon this testimony were cOrreC
~ as the case stood at the time that test
Al, mOny was offered.
le The testimony relating to the form
t. dealing of McNeal with the firm
10 George W. CrOsier & Co., while Villa
~ ~ was a partner was all allowed, probab
~ under the claim so made; but we thiI
in it might properly have been limited
e- its effect, in the charge to the jury.
nv There was one item of testimony til
" was rejected of which serious cOmplai
'S. | L. L. hn4 l., 4l,sa. L.