Case Name: David S. Eaton versus John Taylor and Another
Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts
Decision Date: 1813-03
Citations: 9 Tyng 54
Docket Number: 
Parties: David S. Eaton versus John Taylor and Another.
Judges: 
Reporter: Massachusetts Reports
Volume: 10
Pages: 65–67

Head Matter:
David S. Eaton versus John Taylor and Another.
After the dissolution of a copartnership existing between two, one of the partners made a promissory note signed by himself, and purporting to be for the account of the company; on which note the other partner made a partial payment; and this was holden sufficient evidence to charge the two partners, in an action upon tlie note.
The plaintiff declares in case, that John Taylor and William Hall, at, &c., on, &,c., by their note of that date, signed by their copartnership name of John Taylor if Company, for value received, promised the said Eaton to pay him or order the sum of one hundred and eighty-one dollars and fifty cents on demand with interest. Yet though requested, &c.
At the trial of the cause, which was had before Parker, J., at the last November term in this county, the evidence offered by the plaintiff was a note of hand in the words and figures following, viz: —-
“ Boston, March 25, 1809. For value received, we promise to pay Mr. David S. Eaton or order one hundred eighty-one dollars fifty-nine cents on demand with interest.
“ For John Taylor if Company.
“John Taylor.”
Endorsed, “ Boston, February 15, 1810. Received on the within one hundred dollars, of Mr. Hall.”
It was in evidence that John Taylor, who signed the note, and the said Hall, had been in partnership, and had done business, during the partnership, with the plaintiff; that the partnership had been dissolved more than a year * before the [ * 55 ] note in question was signed ; that this note was given in lieu of another, or other notes, which had been given during the partnership; but whether the notes taken up were the notes of Taylor &f Hall, or of Taylor alone, the witness did not know There was no proof of any authority given to Taylor to sign notes lor the company, or for Hall, after the dissolution of the partnership ; but there was evidence that Hall, being called upon to pay, did pay one hundred dollars, which, with his knowledge, was endorsed on this note; and that he declared he had taken securities from Taylor to collect, and that he had collected the one hundred dollars which he had paid to Eaton on this note.
The judge instructed the jury, if they were satisfied that Hall had adopted and sanctioned the act of Taylor in signing the note for himself and Hall, they ought to find for the plaintiff, notwith • standing the partnership had been dissolved before the signing of the note, and although no direct authority was given at the time of signing. A verdict was accordingly returned for the plaintiff; and a new trial being moved for by the defendant, the action stood over to this term.
Heard, for the defendant,
contended that the note given in evi dence did not support the plaintiff’s declaration, and was improperly admitted. There was at the time no such firm or copartnership in existence as John Taylor &f Co.; so that, if Taylor had had an authority to bind Hall, yet this note had no such effect. But there was no evidence of any such authority, and the verdict, as against Hall, is without any evidence to support it.
Welsh for the plaintiff.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The direction to the jury was correct, and the verdict returned under that direction must stand; although, upon the whole case, we should have been as well satisfied with a verdict for the defendant.
Judgment on the verdict.
Memorandum. — The Honorable Charles Jackson, having been commissioned, as a justice of this Court, to fill the vacancy occasioned by the death of Mr. Justice Sedgwick, took his seat on the bench a few days before the close of this term.
ADDITIONAL NOTE.
[See Vernon vs. Manhattan, &c., 22 Wend. 183. — Levy vs. Cadet, 17 S. & R. 126. -Foster vs. Andrews, 2 Penns. 160. — Roberts vs. Ripley, 34 Conn. 453.— Whitman vs. Leonard, 3 Pick. 177.— Willis vs. Hill, 2 Dev. & B. 231.— Cotton vs. Evans, 1 Dev. B. Eq. 284.— Vinal vs. Burrill, 16 Pick. 401.—Ault vs. Goodrich, 4 Russ. 430. — Rathbone vs. Drakeford, 6 Bing. 375.
One partner, after dissolution, cannot bind the others, even by the renewal of a partnership note.—National, &c., vs. Norton, 1 Hill, (N. Y.) 572. — So, notwithstanding a power reserved to him in the articles of dissolution, to settle the business of the firm, and for that purpose to use their name. — Ibid. — But the acts of one partner, after dissolution, bind the firm as to all who have previously dealt with them, and received no actual notice of the dissolution. — Ibid. — But see Whitehead vs. The Bank, &c., 2 Watts & Serg. 172. — See Watkinson vs. Bank, &c., 4 Whart. 482. — Booth vs. Quin, 7 Price, 193, n.
After dissolution, one partner cannot confess a judgment against all, for a partnership debt, without express authority. — Bennett vs. Marshall, 2 Miles, 436.
One partner, who is solvent, may, after a secret act of bankruptcy by another, bind the firm by accepting a bill for a previous debt. — Ex parte Robinson, 1 Mont. & Ayr. 18.
The individual note of a partner, payable to the firm, remaining in their possession t'll it was overdue, — held, after dissolution, another partner, though authorized to settle the affairs of the firm, could not negotiate it in their name. — Parker vs. Macomber, 18 Pick. 505.
But where the individual note of a partner, payable to bearer, and made after dissolution, was transferred to the firm by the holders in payment of a debt, — held, the note might be transferred to a stranger by another partner authorized to settle the oartnership concerns —Ibid.—F. H.j