Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1900-09-09
COURT DECISIONS.
~iGsSTED BY w. NB. MARTIN
EXCLUSIVELY For
yRciNlAN- plLoT.
aotes of Cases Recently Decided
Which Are Of Interest to
Our People.
PAGE ". CITIZENS BANKING CO.
Supreme Court of Georgia.
June 6, 1900.

S'AAS SOott VI GSOTRld.
June 6, 1900.
A PARTNERSHIP IS LIABLE AS
SUCH FOR MALICIOUS PROSE-
CUTION WHEN THE SAME WAS
IN FURTHERANCE OF THE
FIRMS INTERESTS AND BY d.
RECT AUTHORITY OF ALL ITS
MEMBERS.
Page brought suit against Ashburn,
Peacock, Edwards. Lietch, Williams,
Rogers. and the Citizens Banking
Company of Eastman. which was al
legged to be a partnership composed of
the five persons first above named.
The petition contained three counts
one for malicious prosecution, one for
malicious arrest, and one for false i'm
priSonment.
The court says.
Whether partnership can be sued
as such. and held liable for a tort in
the commission of which all of the
members united for the purpose of fur
therinS the interests OF the partner
ship, or whether in such Il case the in
diVldualS only are liable to be sued,
either jointly or severally, is q question
which is for the first time presented
to this court for decision. Can Il part
nership itself be regarded as being so
separate and distinct from the indi-
vidual members of the same that it
may be treated as the wrongdoer, and
judgment rendered against it which
would bind partnership assets in the
same manner that Judgment render
ed against 1t on a contract would bind
such assets? ~ corporation is n per-
son, and therefore It is clear that the
decisions uniformly holding that it
may be rendered liable for tort COM
mitted by it's agent are undoubtedly
sound. Though firm or partnership
is not person. 1t is Il legal entity, and
Tor some purposes is recognized as Il
quasi person, having powers and func-
tons exercisable by one of the part
nerS Severally, or all of them Jointly"
According to II. Parsons Partn [3d
Ed p. 4i9). there is u general ten
dency of the law at this day to- com
plete its recognition of n partnership
as body of itself. with its own means
appointed to its own debts. In view of
this tendency, which Is everywhere
traceable, and no less in our own local
system than elsewhere, we may safely
hold that though n firm or partner
ship is impersonal or non-personal, it
is. for some purposes. in contempla-
ton of law. quasi person. having
powers and functions excrcisaDle by
one OF the partners separately, or all
of them jointly. That it may he n
debtor or n creditor. within the mean
ing of modern statutory cnactments,
1t was held that an insolvent firm
might make an assignment as an in
solvent debtor, though the partners
themselves. as individuals, might be
solvent
If a partnership may be considered
as an entity. so as to he subjected to
a suit as such in the cases referred to
In the decision from which the above
quotation Is made. we do not see why,
upon principle. partnership might
not be treated as an entity, and sunble
as such by one who had been the sub
ject of a wrong committed by the con-
current action of all the members of
the partnership in the prosecution of n
transaction instituted and carried on
for the purpose of furnishing one who
was charged with despoiling the part
Dership of it's property, as well as for
the purpose of recovering property
which was owned by the partnership.
Such is the case made by that count
in the petition which seeks damages
for the malicious prosecution which 1t
is distinctly alleged was instituted and
carried on by the direct authority of
each and every member of the part
nership acting both in their individual
capacities and as members of the firm.
1T has been held that, If one partner
maliciouSly prOSecutcS person for
stealing partnership property, the firm
is not answerable. unless all the men,
berS are In TACT prlvy to the malicious
prosecution. 1t would seem 70 follow
from this ruling that. If all of the
members united in instituting and car
rying on the prosecution, the firm
would be answerable and such are the
allegations In the present case.
Treating the partnership as a legal
entity and as n quasi person. as we
are not only authorized but bound. to
do. following the decision in DruclSer
V. Welhouse, supra, we have no hest
fancy In holding that under the allie
cations of the petition an action for
malicious prosecution was maintaina-
BILE against the Citizens Banking Com
pany as a partnership. and that the
plaintiff is entitled. under his allega-
lions, to recover a judgment which will
bind partnership assets. Reversed.
One fare for the round trip to the