The enterprise. [volume] (Wellington, Ohio) 188?-1899, 1895-05-22
A CIRCUIT COURT DECISION.
Decision of the Circuit Court Given by
Judge Hale, May 2, 1898.

error, Is proceeding IN winch tne reNer-
sal of the judgment of the court OF com
mon pleas is sought. The errors assigned
are several. Twill first notice the error
assigned to the Overruling of the motion
for new trial. We were asked by coun-
sci, to carefully read this entire record;
and have done so; and have give the case
very careful consideration.
It must be conceded that from 1888 to
1890 partnership existed between Will
lam CrOsier and George W. CrOsier; any
finding of the jury against this propO-
sitiOn, would be against the weight of
the evidence.
Further upon the question as to the
dissolution of that firm, we think that
any finding of the jury holding that the
firm was not dissolved in 1890, would be
against the weight of the evidence; that
the testimony clearly establishes as be-
tween the brothers George W. and Will
lam, the firm was dissolved in 1890, so
that at the time of the transaction here
complained of, no partnership in fact ex-
listed between George W. and William
CrOsier.
The claim in controversy is based upon
two bills Of exchange or drafts, given by
George W. CrOsier to McNeal, or accept
ances in favor of McNeal. One dated
September 9Th and the other October 9th,
and an account for goods sold by McNeal
to George W. CrOsier & Company on the
9th of October 1892, aggregating some
thing over $l200. Then the liability of
William cannot be based upon the fact
that he was a partner with George W. as
between themselves. Finding as we do,
and as the jury should have found, that
the partnership that existed prior to 1896
was in that year dissolved, it becomes es-
sential to inquire whether William, al
though not partner in fact, with
George W. CrOsier, is liable for this
claim for any other reason.
The dissolution occurred in 1890. The
the usual notice of the dissolution of that
firm was published in local paper, OF
the general circulation, a paper printed
in a town the size of Wellington would
have, and the ordinary steps taken by the
firm, to cause it to be known to the
world, that dissolution had taken place
And so far as this record disclOses, il
would seem to have been well understood
in the neighbOrhoOd where the firm was
doing business, that such dissolution hat
taken place. And we think it was suf
ficient to exempt William CrOsier from
any liability, for the debts of George W
CrOsier & Company, contracted after tn
dissolution, with persons, who had no
been dealers with the firm, prior to th
dissolution. So that as to the customer
of the new firm, Or of the firm after tn
dissolution, he would not be liable.
But it is claimed that McNeal was
dealer with firm of George W. CrOsier {
Company, while William was partne
of that firm, and that the transactions be
tween McNeal and such firm were such
as to constitute McNeal, what is know a
a former dealer, with the firm, of G. W
CrOsier & Co.
The rule relating to notice of the dis
solution of partnership is essential
different, as applied to former dealer
with firm, form the rule which relates
y subsequent dealers only. | suppose tn
rule to be, that if the retiring partne
U desires to exempt himself from liability
for the debts of the new firm, cOntracte
d with dealer of the old firm, he mus
cause actual notice of his retiremeI
~ from the firm to be given to such fOrmt
dealer. do not mean that, if the fO
!" mer dealer gets the information from an
source, Of the dissolution of the firm,
would not answer the purpose, but actu;
. notice is required in such case; hence
" becomes essential to inquire whethC
Samuel C. McNeal was dealer with I'll
o firm of George W. CrOsier & COmpan,
|" while William CrOsier was member
- that partnership.
!" The facts bearing upon that prOpOs
- tion are not disputed. Cassidy & N
" Neal were, prior to, or perhaps in Il
year 1888, partners doing business
~ Summit county, at Peninsula, under Il
I" firm name of Cassidy & McNeal. I'll
dealings, it appears from this recOr
- that are relied upon as fixing the statl
J" of McNeal, as a former dealer with Il
old firm of G. W. Crosier & Co. were ira
~ sactiOns, that took place between Cassie
~ and McNeal, the firm at Peninsula, al
~ George W. CrOsier & Co. They we
~ sales of cheeses from Cassidy & Meme
to George W, CrOsier & Co. in 1888. II
,o firm of Cassidy & McNeal dissolved shOl
w ly after these transactions. McNeal at t
time of the transactions in cOntrOver
NJ in this action, was doing business
" Akron by himself; Cassidy had gone els
where and was doing business either
himself or in connection with othe
M Nearly four years had elapsed betwe
W the dealings of the firm of Cassidy &
Neal, with George W. Crosier & Co.
1888 and the transactions out of viii