Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1899-02-19

WE'RE NOT LIABLE FOR y NOTE
MADE by y MEMBER OF TIE
AMERICAN FIRM AFTER THE
CESSATION OF BUSINESS BE
TWEEN THE TWO FIRMS, AND
FOR ~ SUBSEQUENT DEBT IN
CURED BY SAID MEMBER IN
HIS OWN BUSINESS.
This was n suit by the plaintiff bank
to collect by way Of foreign attachment
notes made by Miller * Co. to the
bank, and the property of the defend
ants. jose IL Sons who were Il firm
trading in England. was attached.
several years before this suit WAS
brought Miller was Il member of the
hrln of Miller * Hawkins, OF Lynch
burg, Virginia. and the two firms of
Jose X Sons and Miller & Hawkins
We're engaged in buying tobacco in
America and selling it in Europe on
loint account. The drafts. &c, on ac-
count OF this business were collected
through the plaintiff bank. Miller at
tending 10 that matter with the bank.
In lS2= The firm Of Million * uaMkin,
was dissolved: and in 1891 Miller. who
was conducting the tobacco business as
H. l.. Miller * Co, made four notes to
The plaintiff which were on account of
ihat business. and these were the
notes sued on. the plaintiff claiming
that Miller x Hawkins and Jose &:
Sons were liable as partners for them.
me lower court dismissed the bill. and
ms decision was affirmed in the Court
of Appeals.
The court says: Whatever may have
been the intention OF the parties there
10, the agreement of December "a 1857
tthe agreement to buy and sell tobacco
on JOINT accnunD, made and consti-
tuted the persons composing the firm
or Miller & Hawkins. and those COM
posing the firm of T. u. Jose &; Sons.
partners in the buying. preparing and
shipping bright Virginia leaf tobacco.
ana such other classes of tobacco as
were contemplated by the agreement.
and to conduct all usual trade opern,
tons connected Herewith, the part
nership to continue for five years from
January ], 1SSS, till terminated by linn
itation, or as provided in the agree
ment or by mutual consent of the
partners.
1ah la, Goes not follow however. that the
depts sued on here are debts properly
chargeable to this partnership whether
contracted by X. l.. Miller, or by IL. L.
Miller as Il. l., Miller K Co. or bv
Miller q Hawkins. The uucstion--,.c
mains whether or not these debts were
contracted on the faith anu credit of
me JoscS as partners with Miller G.
Hawkins, CT whether the money was
ioaheu Tor the benefit of the partner
SNIP or the partnership received the
nehefit of the loan. If they We're ever
me partnership debts, they remain 50
on course, until paid. 1t is settled
law that. the borrowing OF money and
negotiation of bills and notes being in
cideht 10, and usual in, the business of
copartnership formed for the burmese
Oh trade, IL follows that when n coDart
ner porrowS money professedly for
me ilrn. and executes therefor n ncpo
t!aDic instrument in the copartnershiD
name. II will bind all the partners.
whether the borrowing was really for
me ilfm. or not, or whether he diverts
ana mlsapplies the funds. or not: pro
Nlued me lender is not himself cogni-
ssftfft OF INC intended fraud, and the
purdeil VIII not be thrown upon him to
STOW mat he was not cognizant of such
irauu' or 10 prove value given for the
paper. But the question in this case
IS. did Miller d Hawkins. or II. l..
Miller. or the latter. trading as r. l.
Miiler & Co.. borrow of the appellant
Dank the money evidenced by the notes
IN sult. Drofessedly for the firm of
which the Joses were partners? The
court then discusses tine facts at length
ana concludes: We are of oDinion thot
appellant has failed to show that f. p
Jose Sons are liable for the debts
asserted in its bill. On the contrary
the proof is that the debts were con
lracted by Miller. acting for himself or
Miller N Hawkins, but not as n NOM,
Der OF. on agent for. firm in which
T. T. Jose & Sons were partners
Affirmed