Case Name: Jacob Kantrowitz, Resp't, v. Isaac Levin et al., App'lts
Court: New York City Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1895-06-25
Citations: 68 N.Y. St. Rep. 357
Docket Number: 
Parties: Jacob Kantrowitz, Resp’t, v. Isaac Levin et al., App’lts.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 68
Pages: 357–357

Head Matter:
Jacob Kantrowitz, Resp’t, v. Isaac Levin et al., App’lts.
(New York City Court, General Term, Filed
June 25, 1895.)
Partnership — Liability.
Where anote is made out, signed with the name of the firm, and delivered by one partner to the payee named therein, who pays full value therefor, the legal presumption is that the original contract was between the firm and such payee, and is sufficient to sustain a finding that the note was a valid firm obligation, in the absence of evidence that the money was advanced to the partner individually, who negotiated the note.
Appeal from a judgment, entered on a verdict in favor of plaintiff, and from, an order denying a motion for a new trial.
A. H. Berrick, for app’lts; M. D. Stener, for resp’t.

Opinion:
Van Wyck, J.
— The proof is complete and uncontradicted that the defendants were co-partners under the firm name of H. & I. Levin, and that defendant Hyman Levin signed said firm name to the two notes of $600 each, payable to order of plaintiff, and sued upon in this action. If the proof showed that these notes were, - without Isaac's knowledge or consent, given by Hyman to pay or secure-his individual indebtedness to the plaintiff, payee, then appellant would be right in his contention that such payee cannot recover thereon as against such co-partnership firm. Union Nat. Bank v. Underhill, 102 N. Y. 336; 2 St. Rep. 248, but such is not the proof, for plaintiff's uncontradicted and corroborated testimony is that, "when these notes were given to me, I gave $600 for the first one and $600 for the second," and that they were made out and signed with the firm name of H. & I. Levin,- by Hyman, to whom plaintiff handed the sum of $600, when each was delivered to him by Hyman.
There is no evidence whatever that Hyman was at that time indebted to plaintiff in any sum, nor even that these two sums were loans to him individually, and the legal presumption is that the original contract was between the copartnership firm, who signed the notes, and the plaintiff, payee, who paid the full face thereof, in cash, to the member of the firm negotiating their discount. The authority of one member of a firm to make and deliver the firm's notes, negotiate the discount thereof, and receive the cash therefor, cannot be questioned by the other members of such firm.
The judgment and order are affirmed, with costs.