Case Name: Crouch and Emmerson vs. Bowman
Court: Tennessee Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Tennessee
Decision Date: 1842-07
Citations: 3 Hum. 209
Docket Number: 
Parties: Crouch and Emmerson vs. Bowman.
Judges: 
Reporter: Tennessee Reports
Volume: 22
Pages: 209–213

Head Matter:
Crouch and Emmerson vs. Bowman.
1. £ very partner is the agent of the partnership, may transact business in its name, and in all simple contracts relating to the business of the partnership he may bind the members of the firm} but in order to do this he must act in the name of the firm and in signing- notes, bills, <fcc. he must subscribe the name or style by which they are known as a firm, and in which they do business.
2. Where Crouch, Emmerson, Jones ail'd Carter were partners under'the firm name of Crouch, Emmerson & Co., and Jones executed a note, signing the names of each of the firm: Held, on a plea of non est factum filed by Crouch, Emmerson and Carter, that Jones had no power to bind them by such signature; that such signature constituted the note prima facie an individual transaction.
3. In order to make all liable it must be shown, that the money or goods that constitute the consideration of the note went into the partnership concern, as par t of the common stock.
On the 14th day of September, 1S39, D. Bowman instituted an action of debt in the circuit court of Washington county, against W. Crouch, Thomas B. Emmerson, D. W. Carter and James H. Jones. This writ was executed on them. At the October term, 1839, the plaintiff filed his declaration in debt on anote signed “Crouch & Emmerson,” and “Carter & Jones,” binding them to pay to Bowman the sum of two hundred and fifty-five dollars.
Crouch & Emmerson pleaded non est factum•, and Jones & Carter payment.
• On these pleas issues were taken, and they were submitted to a jury at the February term, 1842, judge Anderson presiding. It appeared that Jones signed the names of the others to the note. It did not appear for what the note was given. ‘^Crouch & Emmerson” were doing business in Jonesborough, under that firm name, and Jones & Carter in the same place, under the firm name of “Carter & Jones,” and these four persons were partners in one joint concern in shipping flour down the river. The plaintiff also gave in evidence a receipt executed to Crouch, Emmerson & Co., and an order from Crouch to Jones.
Anderson, judge, charged the jury, that though the plain tiff did not charge the. defendants as general partners, yet if the proof showed that in fact they were general partners, it would be sufficient to authorize them to find for the plaintiff on the plea of non est factum, and that if a partnership were proved, the law would presume it a general partnership; that it would be incumbent on the defendants to show any limitation, if any there were, on the terms of said agreement, and that general partners had the right to bind each other by simple contract in all matters that properly relate to the business of the partnership.
The jury rendered a verdict against all the defendants.
Crouch & Emmerson moved the court for a new trial, which was overruled, and judgment rendered in favor of plaintiff. They appealed in error to this court.
J. A. McKinney, for the plaintiffs in error.
T. A. R. Nelson, for the defendant in error.

Opinion:
Giiben, J.
delivered the opinion of the court.
This is an action of debt brought by Bowman against Wm. Crouch and Thomas B. Emmerson, partnei's, trading under the firm of Crouch & Emmerson, and David W. Carter and James H. Jones, partners, trading under the firm of Carter & Jones, upon the following note:
"$255. — On or before the first day of June, we promise to pay Daniel Bowman two hundred and fifty-five dollars, in par money, for value received, April 3d, 1837.
CROUCH & EMMERSON,
CARTER & JONES."
Crouch & Emmerson pleaded severally non est factum, and Carter & Jones pleaded payment.
On the trial it was proved, that James H. Jones, a member of the firm of Carter & Jones, executed the said note, and signed the name of Carter & Jones, as also the name of Crouch & Emmerson. It was also proved, that Crouch & Emmerson was the name of a firm doing business in Jonesborough, and that Carter & Jones was the name of another firm doing business in said town, and that these two firms were in partnership in sending flour down the river in 1836 and 1837. The plaintiff below was a miller and dealt in flour.
The plaintiff gave in evidence a receipt executed to Crouch, Emmerson &f Co. by J. & W. K. Blair; and an order from Wm. H. Crouch to Mr. Jones to pay Daniel Bowman $125, and stating that he had bought one hundred barrels of flour, and that the balance must be paid in par money.
The jury found a verdict against all the defendants, upon which judgment was rendered, and from which Crouch & Em-merson appealed in error to this court. The question is, whether the issue on the plea of non est factum was properly found by the jury against Crouch & Emmerson. Every partner is an agent of the partnership, and may transact business in its name, and in all simple contracts relating to the business of the partnership, he may bind all the members of the firm. Butin order to do this, he must act in the name of the firm, and in signing-notes, bills, &c. he must subscribe the name of, or style by which they are known as a firm, and in which they do business. Judge Story says, (Com. on Part. sec. 102,) "All such contracts and engagements, acts and things, he has authority to make ordo in the name of the firm; and indeed to bind the firm, they must ordinarily be made and done in the name of the firm, otherwise they will bind the individual-partner only, who executes them as his own private acts, contracts or things." Pothier says, (Story on Part. sec. 102,) "Whatever may be the authority of a partner, in order that a debt contracted by him should bind his partners, it is necessary that it should be contracted in the name of the firm." Mr. Erskine says, (Ersk. Inst. B. 3, Tit. 3 sec. 20, See Story on Part, note 2 p. 154,) "According to our present practice, the partners in private companies generally assume to themselves a firm name, proper to their own company, by which they may be distinguished in their transactions; and in all deeds subscribed by this name of distinction, every partner is, by the nature of co-partnery, understood to be intrusted with a power from the company, of binding them. Any one partner, therefore, who signs a bill or other obligation, by the company's firm, obliges all the partners; but where he subscribes a deed by his own proper subscription, the creditor, who followed his faith alone in the transaction, hath no action against the company, unless he prove that the money lent or advanced by him was thrown into the common stock." "But" says chancellor Kent, (2 Comm. 41,) "if a bill or note be drawn by one partner, in his own name only, and without appearing to be on partnership account, or if one partner borrow money on his own security, the partnership is not bound by the signature, even though it was made for a partnership purpose, or the money applied to a partnership use." But it is otherwise, if the bill be drawn by the partner upon the firm, in his own name, upon partnership account.
It is not enough, therefore, in this case, that Jones had power to bind Emmerson, Carter and Crouch, as well as himself, by his signature; unless he subscribed the name of the firm, the partners are not bound.
. If two persons are in partnership, doing business in the firm name of Doe &Roe, and John Doe, one of the partners, executes a note, signing his own name, John Doe, and under that, as a distinct signature, the name of Richard Roe his partner, the latter will not be bound by such signature. Prima facie it is not a partnership, but an individual transaction. In order to make both liable, it must be shown by the plaintiff, that the money or goods, that constituted the consideration of the note, went into the partnership concern, as part of the common stock. This being proved, both are liable, although Doe signed his own name only to the note.
A partnership does not create the partners agents to bind the other partners, except by acts done in the firm name. In this case the firm name of the partnership for sending flour down the river was not used. There is no express testimony as to what was the style of the partnership; but the receipt produced by the plaintiff, executed by the Blairs, styles it Crouch, Em-merson & Co. Certainly a member of the firm of Crouch, Emmerson & Co., as such, had no power, by subscribing the name of Crouch & Emmerson, to bind that firm, or any member of it, and consequently the issue upon the plea' of non est factum should have been found in favor of the defendants.
If one individual member of a firm could, by subscribing the individual name of such member of the firm, bind them all, he could, by subscribing the name of any one of them, bind that one; a consequence, from a partnership, most absurd and mischievous.
Wo are, therefore, of opinion there is error in this record, and that the judgment should be reversed.