Case Name: Brown against Lawrence and others
Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Connecticut
Decision Date: 1824-07
Citations: 5 Conn. 397
Docket Number: 
Parties: Brown against Lawrence and others.
Judges: Peters, Brainard and Bristol, Js. were of the same opinion.
Reporter: Connecticut Reports
Volume: 5
Pages: 397–400

Head Matter:
Brown against Lawrence and others.
Where one of several joint partners gives a receipt in his own name, having relation to the partnership business, it is obligatory on the partnership.
Therefore, where it appeared, in an action of account against several joint partners, that one of them received of the plaintiff certain promissory notes to collect, for which he gave a receipt in his own name; and the plaintiff, to shew that the transaction had relation to the partnership business, and thus to evince the liability of the defendants, offered to prove, that such notes were delivered by the plaintiff, to that partner, while he was attending to other concerns of the partnership, to be collected and applied in satisfaction of a note clue from the plaintiff to the partnership, and that that partner did accordingly collect one of such notes, and endorse the avails on the plaintiff's note to the partnership ; it was held, that such evidence was admissible.
This was an action of account, brought by Brown, as surviving partner of the late firm of Brown and Hall, against Thomas Lawrence, John F. Lawrence and Thomas G. Casey, joint partners, under the firm of T. and J. F. Lawrence & Co., charging them with having received of Brown and Hall sundry promissory notes, to the amount of 837 dollars, to collect, as the agents, attorneys and bailiffs of Brown and Hall, and thereof to render their reasonable account.
The cause was tried, on the issue of never bailiffs and receivers, at Brooklyn, September term, 1823, before Peters, J.
The plaintiff offered in evidence the following receipt, signed by Thomas G. Casey, one of the defendants: " Received from Brown and Hall, for collection, John P. Hall’s note, due 25th of December, 1819, for 24 dollars, [and sundry others described] making together 837 dollars. Whatever expenses accrue in collection, their amount to be allowed, by Messrs. Brown and Hall. Augusta, 28th March, 1820. T. G. Casey." In connexion with this receipt, the plaintiff offered also to prove, that at the date of it, Casey was in Georgia, collecting debts due to the defendants ; and for this purpose, he had a note against Brown and Hall, in favour of the defendants, for 918 dollars, dated August 26th, 1818 ; that Brown and Hall paid him 140 dollars, which he indorsed on that note, and delivered to him the notes described in the receipt, to be collected and applied also on that note; and that on the 16th of November, 1820, Casey collected and endorsed on said note 126 dollars, the avails of one of the notes mentioned in the receipt. To the admission of this evidence the defendants objected ; but the judge admitted it, and instructed the jury, that if they were satisfied, that the notes mentioned in the receipt were received to be collected and applied on the note in favour of the defendants, their verdict must be for the plaintiff ; otherwise, for the defendants.
Windham,
July, 1824.
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff ; and the defendants moved for a new trial, on the ground of error in the admission of evidence, and in the direction to the jury.
Cleaveland, in support of the motion,
contended 1. That the receipt given by Casey, in his individual capacity, did not bind the company, and was, therefore, no evidence of the company’s liability to account. Siffkin v. Walker & al. 2 Campb. 308. This being an action founded on contract, the proof must conform strictly to the general allegations. Weall v. King & al. 12 East 452. Murray v. Somerville, 2 Campb. 99. n. Livingston's exrs. v. Tremper & al. 11 Johns. Rep. 101.
2. That any subsequent application could not be received to shew that the company were holden. Saville v. Robertson & al. 4 Term Rep. 720.
Goddard, contra.

Opinion:
Hosmer, Ch. J.
It is admitted by the parties, in this case that Casey was empowered to oblige the firm of Lawrence & Co. by contract, to a responsibility for the notes, received of Brown and Hall to collect. Nor has any objection been made to the charge of the judge. If none but legal testimony was admitted, the instruction given to the jury seems unexceptionable ; as, in substance, they were directed to make their finding pursuant to the testimony. The objection made is precisely this ; that, as Casey gave a receipt for the notes, in his own name, it must not merely be presumed, that he received them on his own personal responsibility, but that evidence to the contrary would be in contravention of the written contract. The judge received such evidence, and submitted the question of fact to the jury ; and the admission of the testimony is supposed to be erroneous.
The receipt contained no express contract, except that the notes in question were received by Casey for collection. Proof was offered and received, that Casey was possessed of a note, given to the defendants, a part of which was paid, and for the residue, the above notes were delivered by Brown and Hall, to be collected, and applied in satisfaction of it. I think the evidence was rightly admitted. The receipt, undoubtedly, standing alone, was evidence, prima facie, of a personal contract made by Casey ; but the proof received, however, did not contradict the writing, and consisted only of collateral facts, which gave it a construction. The nature of the transaction proves, that Casey was exercising the power with which he was invested by the firm, for the joint benefit of the partners ; and that the notes were received to be collected for their use. It has been often adjudged, that where there are partners in a certain business, and one of them gives a receipt in his own name, having relation to such business, it is obligatory on the partnership. Willet v. Chambers, Cowp. 814. Biggs & al. v. Lawrence, 3 Term Rep. 454. Mason v. Rumsey & al. 1 Campb. 384. The case of Willet v. Chambers is not distinguishable, essentially, from the one before the Court. Dadley and Chambers were partners, as attorneys and conveyancers, and part of their business consisted in receiving the money of other persons, and laying it out on securities. Dadley received of the plaintiff a certain sum, and gave for it his personal receipt ; and Chambers received another sum of the plaintiff, and, after having acknowledged the reception of it, "promised to account to him on demand." One of the receipts was signed by Dadley, and the other by Chambers, as individuals. The court held, as the money was to be received to be laid laid out by the partnership, that Dadley and Chambers were jointly responsible. The receipts, per se, proved nothing but the reception of the money by each person individually. Testimony was received to shew the nature of the transaction ; and when it was ascertained, that the money was received for the joint interest, it was said by the court to be received on joint responsibility. Every question arising in this case, arose in Willet v. Chambers, and was settled in the same manner as this case was adjudged in the court below.
I do not advise a new trial.
Peters, Brainard and Bristol, Js. were of the same opinion.
New trial not to be granted.