The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1899-04-21
In THE SUPREME COURT OF THE HAWAIIAl


APPEAL DISTRICT CoURT HoNoLuLU
SUBMITTED MARCH 81 1899 DECIDED Apnu Il 1899
JUDD, CD, FREAE WHITING j.
trading commercial partnerships there is general peump
ton that
the partnership In other partnerships the presumption
orally the other
proof of authority, implied
OPINION OF THE COURT BY FREAR J. -
This is s64 and interest upon promissory
note for $40 pon which Sc had been pa the plain
tiff by of the defendants the partnership
compoeof both defendants The defense partner
had autorityt TO give the of the firm The
District Magistrate found for the plaintiff and the
comes here on defendants appeal on points of law.
lhe general rule that each of the part
nershp with implied authority for the firm all
within the scope of its In trading part
nershs there is general presumption of law that each
give notes in the of the firm for the
that the giving OF such is within the usual
camille transactions In nonading partnerships the presump
ton is generally the other way and in order hold
upon note given in its by partner it must be shown
question of fact that such authority existed that the
has been ratified In such there may be shown express
authority authority implied from its necessity
ful conduct of the business from the of similar
the usage of the particular firm Plaintiffs contend
that this distinction between trading onrang
IS obsolete but such does not to be the 1t sup
ported by all the books and
true at thee are some the other also that there is
hard and fast line to be drawn kinds of
partnerships But there does exist difference presnp-
tons arising from the nature of different kinds of partnerships
and to the necessity of proof Of authority
evidence required sufficient proof See among
the authorities the foowng Bates Partnership
Sec 341 ct seq Ted Com Paper Sec 90 ct sea-; Do,olng
o. Erchange Bank 145 e. S. 512 Pease Cole 53
: vetsch a. Ness &c MINI. 459 GO N. W. 315)
In the partner knew nothing
made by the other until just before suit was ra
afIOD 4hot, e H.
not applied to partnership purposes but
difference II there existed authority make
AUTHORITY On the contrary the articles of CO.
partnership provided that neither partner make any
note without the of the other These
sustain him yet he is not bound by anything therein
he had knowledge The partners conducting business
as rice planters This clearly belongs the class nonan
businesses The presumption that neither partner had author
lty to give note behalf of the There evidence
to show that the giving of by partner partnership
usual in the business of planting had become
practice of this particular firm necessary to the sue
ceul conduct of its business and the say of its
judicial knowledge that there this
IN the planting business here Indeed
contends that the usual planters have an
agent who attends to financial and that the partners
90 not give notes. Ihe evidence shows that the partnership
THIS instance had agent The District Magistrate
nave been OF the opinion that of law
could make notes binding the partnership Tn opinion this
was error. z
The Judgment appealed from and the case RENTED
to the district court for trial
Robertson &c Wilder for plaintiff
L. 4. Dickey for defendants