Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1898-09-25

,,,,ebbrrg court IN the celebrated to-
,.cco case. in which the Commercial |
uo,k OF L.ynchburg sues Miller, ct. ais. |
TWO interesting will cases are also adj
o,elcated. and the right of a city to con-
ten5n land for extending its improvements |
Is treated at length.
Comprehensive abstracts Of tho opfn- |
,ons-fve IN number-are hereto appended: |
Partnership.
Commercial Bank OF Lynchburg VS..
Miller. ct ais. Affirmed. Opinion by
Cardweu, J.
In December. 1887, T. 2. Jose & Son,
Of England, and Miller & Hawkins of
1yuchburg, entered into an agreement.
6enominated by them "a joint account
business together in the purchase. pre-
marathon. and sale OF tobacco, and all
usual trade operations connected there
WITH" for a term OF five years from
January !, 1885, and determinable as per
Article 10 Of the agreement
Miller & Hawkins shipped tobacco TO
many other firms than Jose e. Son. near
IS i've times as much to other foreign
firms. exclusive of domestic business. as
70 Jose & Co., while this agreement was
IN force. The Joint account business
was terminated April %. 1891, by one of
the Joses. Miller acquiescing therein
and afterwards attempting TO renew Il,
Jcses declining. In August, 1892 Miller
& Hawkins dissolved partnership, Miller
buying Hawkins out. assuming the debts,
and conducting the business as r. l..
Miller. and afterwards as r. L. Miller &
Co.. until he failed. in 1894, and left the
State When the "joint account bust
ness" was closed there was a small bal
ance Of profit due Miller & Hawkins,
which YVES transferred TO Miller's account
with Jose & Co., and the general ac-
count between Miller & Hawkins, and
Miller q Co., with Jose Co.. Involving
shipments to be sold on commission, re-
suited IN large losses.
In 1889 Miller q Hawkins, to secure
credits for advances from Jose & Son,
conveyed their lot and factory in trust
20 secure such advances up to $1,000
and as OF October l. 1895. they owed Jose
& Son $1,000. secured in part by this
deed This is the debt that appellant
seeks TO attach In payment Of notes al
legged to have been contracted by Il. p.
Jose & Son and Miller & Hawkins, as
partners in the tobacco business at
Lynchburg. under the firm name of Miller
g. Hawkins Jose & Son denied any
"a
bank or that they had any connection
Will, its transactions with Miller &
Hawkins. or r. L. Miller g. Co. under
that or any other style, admitting the
Joint account" transactions with Miller
q Hawkins from January, 1888. TO May
1901. ard denying the general partner
ship charged and also any joint account
with Miller, or with Miller co. APP
pollants amended bill then charged that
the notes Of r. l. Miller & Co. maize II
1894 represented indebtedness that aros,
before Hawkins retired from the firm o
Miller & Hawkins. and while the Join
account" arrangement and the alleged
partnership with the Joses subsisted
The lower court dismissed the bills.
THE PARTNERSHIP EXISTED.
He'd: l. Whatever the intentions Of IN
mariners. tho agreement of December
1SS7. constituted the persons composite
the firm OF Miller & Hawkins, and thos
composing the firm Of Jose Son. part
pers in the tobacco business as contem
plated by the agreement TO continue 10
five years. unless sooner terminated, a
provided for. or by mutual consent. Win
cid, VS.. Bank. L. S.. Peters $50; Wea
YER rs. TapscOtt, Leigh, 424; Bank VS.
washington, 8 Graft, 42S, Jones vs.. Muir
ply. 80 Va, 2lS
mt IL does not follow that the debt
here are properly chargeable 10 TINS part
uership whether contracted by Miller Q
Miller * Co. or by Miller d Hawkins. l
they ever were the partnerships DEBT:
they remain so till paid, whether eVl
donced by the original notes given 10
the loans. or notes given in renewal Q
those notes.
When q co-Dartner borrows money
v~ofossedlv for the firm, giving a negt
table instrument in the partnership
ror,e il will bind all the partners
whether borrowed for the firm or no
II the lender be not cognlzant OF u
fraud and the burden is not on nm
urove that ne was not co8nlZaht' Vi
tro,,e value given for the paper. Dani'
-, Neqo Insts.. section 35, The questio
h. v,ss this money borrowed protessedl
60 tbo firm in which Jose & Son wei
partners? .-.,,i
The general rule that partnershii
g., hound nv the acts Of its agents Wlthl
the scope Of their authority must
taten with the qualification thaI u
agent was acting in his character
aeent. and not as a principal II ~
ACTING as agent, or If acting aS piiN"
individual in his own account ms az
cannot be imputed 70 the nrm' ana
sIone is liable. even though the firm
bonofted bv them. 1 Bindey on Part Is
II eec h. Beckham VS.. Drake, NJ al
W, 70 ,.-,h .,
.bo conclusion reached that there Is
error in the decree.
A VIII Case.
Mamie z Robertson VS.. cary brecNe
ridoe Reversed. opinion by Klein,
Held: 1. Parties cannot be permit
10 stand by and see an executor eeVii
from the path prescribed TO MIN py !
viii and the law in the manner al
under the peculiar circumstances oil
closed by this record, ana theh yea
afterwards. when it is Impossible 10
store him 70 the position whlch ne Woo
o.berycise have occupied. undertake
imnose upon him a liability Tor ms ac
Ioro with their acquiescence IL VIII
.~.s,,oed In a case Ike this, that wh
e., dome was done as a result OF lam
o-,ar,,eroent and agreement. Ihei
ere there was no error III ai'o
IT, The executor credit for taxes accrui
on tbe estate in the hands OF the "luo
80 Cor dabts contracted by her III ma
aging the estate prior 70 10 PEI,
cal distribution among lhosS 49,
While not strictly within me me u
duty as executor, II would De na 'u
ruIlne 10 hold him personally respohsn
nov for payments made In gooo la
thirty years ago and unobJecteu 10 al
,,me and which, so far as the rec.
shows were not only acqulesceo H.
spnroved by all parties In interest
Tho appeal IS from the decree OF
cut. court nasstug upon exceptions