Case Name: BENNETT v. MARSHALL et al.
Court: Philadelphia District Court
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1840-12-19
Citations: 2 Miles 436
Docket Number: 
Parties: BENNETT v. MARSHALL et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases determined in the district court for the city and county of Philadelphia
Volume: 2
Pages: 436–437

Head Matter:
BENNETT v. MARSHALL et al.
December 19, 1840.
Rule to show cause why a judgment should not he opened, &c.
After a dissolution of copartnership, one cannot confess a judgment against all who were partners, without the express authority of those not signing the confession, even although for a debt bona fiie due by the late copartnership.
IN this case Whitnam R. Bennett was plaintiff, and “ William G. Marshal], and E. T. Shaw, now or late copartners in trade under the firm of Marshall & Co.” were defendants.
It was an amicable action in case, to September term, 1840, No. 819, entered by agreement, dated and filed October 1st, and judgment was entered in favour of plaintiff for S372.70 by confession.
The amicable action and confession of judgment was signed by William G. Marshall only. The plaintiff filed, at the same time, copies of notes given by the firm of Marshall & Co. before its dissolution.
Plaintiff issued a fieri facias to September term, 1840. E. T. Shaw obtained a rule to show cause why the judgment shouldn ot be opened as to him, and why the fieri facias should not be set aside.
The deposition of William G. Marshall was taken. It was as follows, viz.:
“ William G. Marshall, a witness, being duly sworn, according to law, deposes, and says, that the partnership existing between himself and E. T. Shaw, was dissolved on the 16th of April, 1840, according to the paper hereto annexed marked (A); that all of the goods belonging to said partnership were transferred to E. T. Shaw, and that he was to settle all the debts of the firm. Deponent has not had any thing to do with the affairs of the late partnership since the dissolution.”
(A)
“ The partnership heretofore existing between the subscribers, under the firm of Marshall & Co., Brush makers, is this day dissolved by mutual consent. Edward T. Shaw is duly authorized to arrange the unsettled business.
“ Witness, Edward Shaw, [l. s.]
Wm. G. Marshall. [l. s.]”
“ Blanchard Kimbel.”
“ Philadelphia, 16th April, 1840.”
Meredith, for rule.
E. D. Tarr, contra.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.—
After a dissolution of a copartnership, one cannot confess a judgment against all who were partners without the express authority of those not signing the confession, even although for a debt bona fide due by the late copartnership.
Rule absolute.