Court Opinion

ID: 8637926
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-24 19:48:21.064935+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:55:59.643421
License: Public Domain

STORY, Circuit Justice.
Upon this statement of facts, which is not controverted, I am of opinion, that the plaintiffs are not entitled to recover. No partner has any authority after a dissolution of the partnership, to bind his copartners by any new contract. The acceptance of these bills is altogether a new contract. It is true, that if the partnership is still ostensibly carried on in the name of the firm, and no public notice is given of the dissolution of the partnership, though it is secretly dissolved, third persons, dealing with the firm upon the faith of the partnership and joint responsibility, are entitled to hold all the partners. But it is otherwise, where the dissolution is made public. Here, before the acceptance, the dissolution was publickly announced. The partners had not held out to the payee, or the present holders, that they would accept "the bill. Every non-aceepted bill is necessarily taken upon the faith and credit of the drawer; and no person can bind the drawee by his acceptance, except a person having an express or implied authority for that purpose. After the dissolution of the partnership, and a pub-lie notice of it, there was a withdrawal of all such authority; and consequently the acceptance, as to John Lyman, is void. Upon principle then, the action, being joint upon a joint acceptance, fails as to both.
Mem. By consent of the parties, the plaintiff discontinued as to Lyman, amended his declaration, and took a judgment against Dumell alone.