Case Name: Jane Steel v. Jennings & Beatty
Court: South Carolina Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1840-05
Citations: 1 Chev. 183
Docket Number: 
Parties: Jane Steel v. Jennings & Beatty.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Carolina Law Reports
Volume: 25
Pages: 183–184

Head Matter:
Jane Steel v. Jennings & Beatty.
To charge a firm with money Borrowed By a partner, it is enough that the Borrowing was on the credit of the firm, whether J:or its use or not.
Before Richardson, J., at York, Spring Term, 1840.
This was an action for money borrowed by Jennings, who had been a partner in trade with Beatty. Beatty’s defence was, that it was no partnership debt. On this point, the jury were instructed that the question was, did Jennings borrow the money for himself only, or for the firm 1
Verdict for the plaintiff against Jennings, but in favor of Beatty.
The plaintiff appealed, and moved for a new trial, on the ground that the true issue should have been, whether the plaintiff had lent her money on the faith and credit of the firm.
A. W. Thomson, for the motion.
S. C. again, 1 McM. 297. An.

Opinion:
Curia, per Richardson, J.
The proper principle of the case is that, if the money was borrowed by Jennings upon the credit of the firm, no matter to whose use it was applied, or to be applied, the lender ought to recover against both the partners.
But, in charging that the true question was, "did Jennings borrow the money for himself only, or for the firm?" the Court should have said, " for himself only," and upon his own credit only. Otherwise, it would be implied that, although the money may have been borrowed on the credit of the firm, yet, if for the use of Jennings alone, the lender could not recover from the other partner; and the jury may have been led into error in regard to the precise legal principle of the case, as that depended upon whether the plaintiff gave credit to the firm, or to Jennings alone.
A new trial is therefore ordered.
The whole Court concurred.