Case Name: Susan Burchell, Respondent, v. Henry H. Voght, Appellant, Impleaded with Joseph Bork
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1898
Citations: 35 A.D. 190
Docket Number: 
Parties: Susan Burchell, Respondent, v. Henry H. Voght, Appellant, Impleaded with Joseph Bork.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 35
Pages: 190–201

Head Matter:
Susan Burchell, Respondent, v. Henry H. Voght, Appellant, Impleaded with Joseph Bork.
Partnership ■—presumption of knowledge of the contents of the firm books —firm account kept in the name of one pa/rtner — money borroioed by one partner for use by the firm.
The presumption that a partner has knowledge of the entries in the firm books is not changed by proof that another partner was permitted to use the books of the firm for his individual business; and where it is conceded that a firm account with the bank was kept in the name of the other partner, and that the checks drawn on that account were signed by him, the firm is as effectually bound by the checks so signed as it would have been had the checks been signed in the firm name and been drawn on a bank account kept in the name of the firm.
Where money has been borrowed by one of the partners for the use of the firm, and has been used by the firm, as appears by entries in the firm books, a partner who has acquiesced therein is bound by the transaction.
Green, J., dissented.
Appeal by the defendant, Henry H. Yoght, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Erie on the 9th day of August, 1897, upon the report of a referee.
The action was brought by the plaintiff, as assignee of John W. Leech, against the defendants as copartners, composing the firm of Bork & Yoght, to recover certain moneys alleged to have been loaned to said defendants by the plaintiff’s assignor, together with certain moneys alleged to have been collected by the defendants for the plaintiff’s assignor, and the price of certain personal property alleged to have been sold to the defendants by the plaintiff’s assignor.
The defendant Henry H. Yoght interposed an answer alleging that the transactions set out in the complaint were not had with the firm of Bork & Yoght, but were had with the defendant Joseph Bork, and that in all such transactions the plaintiff’s assignor relied solely upon the credit of the said Joseph Bork.
Moses Shire, for the appellant.
George W. Cothran, for the respondent.

Opinion:
Follett, J.:
As between Henry H. Voglit and the assignor of the plaintiff, Voght is conclusively presumed to have knowledge of the entries in the books of the firm of Bork & Voght. (Flour City National Bank v. Widener, 24 App. Div. 330, and cases cited.) The fact that Bork was permitted to use the books of the firm for his individual business does not change the rule as between the firm, or the members thereof, and third persons. The moneys advanced by the plaintiff's assignor were loaned by means of checks, entries in respect to which were made in the books of the firm, and they also entered , into the bank account of the firm, and the items appeared in the pass books of the firm with the bank, which brings the case within the rule and within the facts of the authority cited. The fact that Bork gave the checks on the German-American Bank, signed by him individually, is of no moment, for the reason that Voght and all the witnesses agree that a firm account with that bank was kept in the . name of Joseph Bork, and the checks drawn on that account had to be signed by him. If the firm chose to keep its account in that way, it is as effectually bound by the checks as it would have been in case the checks had been drawn in the name of Bork <fc Voght on a bank account kept in the name of Bork & Voght. Voght having permitted the business of the firm to be transacted in that way, cannot now be heard to say that the checks are not binding on or evidence against him, because signed by Joseph Bork. This money having been borrowed by one of the partners for the use of the firm, and having been used by the firm, and the evidence of such borrowing and of such use having been entered on the books of the firm and acquiesced in by Henry H. Voght, he is bound by the transactions. (Baldwin's Bank of Penn Yan v. Butler, 14 N. Y. Supp. 831; Baldwin's Bank of Penn Yan v. Morris, 17 id. 286; affd., 144 N. Y. 637.)
The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.
All concurred, except Green, J., dissenting.