The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1898-09-25
OPINIONS BY THE
SUPREME COURT.
A Digest Of Some Of the Decisions
Handed Down.
THE FOREIGN ATTACHMENT CASE
Jose and Son, of England, anu Miller
and Hawkins, OF Lynchburg-A
Will Case Determined-The
other Cases,

The following are digests Of opinions
handed down ln the supreme Court OF
Appeals OF Virginia on Thursday last.
Commercial sank Of LynchDure, ~.
Miller and ais. Affirmed. OPINION "
CardweN. j.
In December 1857. 7. =. Jose & Son, Of
England, and Miller * Hawkins, OF
Lynchburg, entered into an agreement
uenOminated by them "a JOINT account
business together in the purchase, prepa-
ration ana sale of tobacco, ana an usual
! trade operations connected tneieNltn,
for term Of i've years from January J.,
1855, and determindbie as per article -
OK the agreement.
Miller and Hawkins shipped tolacc0 70
many other firms than Jose a Son, nearly
ave times as much 10 other foreign Trims,
exclusive OF domestic business, as 90
Jose and Co, while this agreement was
ia force The Joint account business
was terminated April -, leJl, by one OF
the JOscs. Milier acquieacing therein, ana
afterwards attempting 20 renew ll, Jlsta
declining. Tn august lsJ2, Miller &
Hawkins dissolved partnership, Miller
buying Hawkins out, assuming lne deDts'
and conducting the business as %. L.
Miller. and afterwards as Il. J.. Miller d.
Co. until he failed IN 1879. ana lelL the
STATE When the Joint Account Busi-
ness" was closed there was small ball
ance of profit due Miller q Hawkins,
which was transferred 10 Millers account
with Jose d CO., and the general ace
count between Miller * H. and Miller q
| Co. with Jose & CO., involving SNIP
ments 90 be sold on commission resulted
I'm large losses
In 1850 Miller HAWKINS TO secui 81
credits for advances from Joscs d
SON. conveyed their lot and factory In
must 10 secure such advances up to SlZ'-
O,l. and as OF October /, 1850, iney o"tu
Jose a. Son $1,000, secured I'D part ny
this deed. This is the DEBT tnal appel
liant seeks 10 attach IN payment or IalT9
alleged 10 have been contracted uy j. \.
lose & Son and Miller a. Hawkins as
oartncrs in the tobacco business az
i.vnchburg under the firm name oi Miller
& Hawkins Jose & Son denied any SORE
of indebtedness ON the notes que the
bank. or that they had any connection
with its transactions with Miller " law
dns, or r. H. Miller * Co., under mat OF
any other style. admitting the joint ace
count Transactions with Miller az law
kins from January. ISIS. TO May, 1881, and
denying the general partnership charged
and also any joint account with Miller.
or with Miller 81 co, Appellant amended
bin then charged that the notes OF h. j..
Miller * Co., made IN 1884,. represented
Indebtedness that arose before Hawkins
retired from the firm Of Miller d haW-
| kins. and while he Joint Account ar
rangement and the alleged partnership
with the Jose's subslsted.
The lower court dismissed the bills.
Held J. Whatever the intentions of the
partners. the agreement or December
| 1857. constituted the persons compo sing
the firm of Miller g. Hawkins, and those
composing the firm of Jose ~ Son, part-
ners in the tobacco business as contem-
plated by the agreement, 20 continue for
five years. unless sooner terminated as
provided for, or by mutual consent
Winship vs.. Bank II. S., Peters 550;
/ Weaver vs. Tapso0tt Leigh 4-4, Bank VS.
Washington. Graft, 4-s; Jones VS.. Muir
| ply, g3 Va. 2i.
But Il does not follow that tho debts
| here are properly clangeabie 90 this part-
nership. whether contracted boy Miller
or Miller & Co., or hy Miller ana Haw-
I stns il they ever were the partnership
| debts they remained so till paid. whether
! evidenced by the original notes given for
/ the loans or notes given In renewal OF
/ those notes.
When a copartncr borrows money pro-
/ fcseedly for the firm. giving @ nesouapie
! instrument in the partnership name
| Sc viii bind an the partners, whether
! borrow ed for the firm on not ii the lender
/ DE- not CoPn'zant of the fraud; ana the
| burden is not on him to prove that he
! was not cognizant rr to prove value given
| for the paper Daniel on Nrso. INST, See.
| 857 The question is. was this money bor-
/ rowed professedy for the hrm in Whleh
! Jose 81 Son were partners
! 2. TIE general rule chat partnership
J is bound by the acts of l.s agents within
/ the scope OF their authority must Doe taken
/ Cd. Id i.