Court Opinion

ID: 9866211
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-26 01:02:17.08753+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:13:54.591269
License: Public Domain

Upon the re-argument of the case
Judge Bryan
delivered the following dissenting opinion :
I desire to add something to the opinion delivered on the first argument of this case. The majority of the Court decide that the firm of William R. Weaver & Co. is not to be regarded as belonging to the class of trading or commercial partnerships, and that therefore there was no implied authority in Weaver to bind the firm by borrowing money, or making promissory notes in. the absence of proof to show actual necessity for the exercise of such power, or a usage authorizing it. The principles which determine the powers of partners are the same in all partnerships. They may lawfully do whatever is within the contemplation of the contract of partnership. They associate together for the purpose of conducting business for their joint benefit, and they mutually entrust each other with the power of prosecuting this business in the ordinary way. Of course, I do not allude to cases where their powers are limited by express agreement with each other. The powers of the members of .different partnerships are different, because the ends and objects and exigencies of the partnerships are different, and for no other reason. There is no line of demarcation between trading and non-trading partnerships, so far as the principle of law is concerned, by which the powers of the partners are ascertained and determined. The passage cited in the opinion of the majority of the Court from Lindley on Partnership is not from the text of the learned author ; but it is from the notes of the American editor. The author's own opinion is not *41stated so broadly, as may be seen from the text which is the subject of the Editor’s annotation. I here quote it: “With respect to partnerships which are not trading partnerships, the question, whether one partner has any implied authority to bind his copartners by putting the name of the firm to a negotiable instrument, depends upon the nature of the partnership. In the absence of evidence showing necessity or usage, the power has been denied to one of several mining adventurers; quarry workers; farmers; solicitors.” Page 130, bottom page 302. Brown vs. Byers and Dickinson vs. Valpy, which are cited in the opinion of the majority, are also cited by Lindley in support of his text. On page 132 (bottom page 313) he says “the power of borrowing money, like every other implied power of a partner only exists, where it is necessary for the transaction of the partnership business in the ordinary way,’’and in stating when a partner cannot borrow money on the credit of the firm, he mentions cases “where the business is such as is customarily carried on, on ready money principles, e. g. mining on the cost book principle; or without borrowing, as in the case of solicitors;” but he does not mention non-trading partnerships. And the reason is obvious; it is because members of all firms, trading or non-trading, have the power “to do for the firm whatever is necessary for the transaction of its business, in the way in which that business is ordinarily carried on by other people ” Lindley on Partnership, 124 top page. And in determining the powers of partners, the inquiry must always be directed to this point. It is true, as stated by Judge Story, in the passage quoted in the opinion of the majority from his work on Partnership, that the power to bind the firm by negotiable instruments “is generally limited to partnerships in trade and commerce.” It is generally limited to these partnerships, because they have the most frequent occasions to borrow money to carry on their business; but *42there is no reason wherefore'it should not extend to partnerships of other descriptions, which require the same facilities. And the passage in Story, succeeding that quoted by the Court, shows that in the opinion of the learned author, they are not excepted. The passage is as follows: “But the same reason does not apply, or at least may not apply to other partnerships, unless indeed it is the common custom or usage of such business to bind the firm by negotiable instruments; or it is necessary for the due transaction thereof.” And in Dickinson vs. Valpy, the leading case so often quoted as establishing a contrary doctrine, Parke, Judge, said “ Now, undoubtedly, if there is a complete partnership between two or more persons, one partner does communicate to the other standing in the relation of complete partner, all authorities necessary for carrying on the partnership, and all the authorities usually exercised by partners in the course of that dealing in which they are engaged.” 10 Barnewall and Cresswell, 140. In apt illustration of this principle we may quote the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania: “In all contracts concerning negotiable paper, the act of one partner binds all; and there is no distinction in principle upon this point between general and special partnerships. One partner may borrow money for the partnership, and give notes and other negotiable securities therefor in the name of the firm ; and the partnership is liable for money borrowed by one of its members on the credit of the firm, within the general scope of its authority and according to the usual course of its business. But, while it is conceded that this is the law as applicable to commercial partnerships, it is insisted that it does not apply to partnerships formed for mechanical or manufacturing purposes. But no such distinction is suggested or recognized in any of the adjudicated cases or text books; and there is no foundation for it in the necessities or usages of these partnerships. *43The necessity for borrowing money to carry on the business of a manufacturing partnership may be as great as it is in order to carry on the business of one that is strictly commercial; and common observation and ' experience show that it is equally the custom and usage of manufacturing, as of commercial partnerships, to borrow money to enable them to conduct their business.” Hoskinson vs. Eliot, 62 Pennsylvania, 401.
The business of paving and grading streets is as well recognized as any other conducted in the City of Baltimore. It is of great extent; it is estimated there are within the city five hundred miles of paved streets, and the number is constantly increasing, and they are continually needing repairs. As I endeavored to show in my former opinion, this business requires unceasing expenditure of money. The Court cannot shut its eyes to the established course of business in large commercial cities. Manufacturers, builders, contractors, stockbrokers and many others are obliged from the very nature of their ordinary business to have bank facilities, equally with merchants. In Porter vs. White, 39 Md., 613, the question was whether printers engaged in business in the City of Baltimore came within this class. The Court decided that the managing partner of a firm of printers could borrow money, and endorse notes for the firm without .showing express authority for that purpose from his copartner, and assigned as the reason, that “such authority would be implied from the existence of the partnership, and the nature of its business.” The distinction between the powers of partners in trade and these partners in paving and grading seems to be very attenuated andunsubstantial; more especially, when we see that in the bond which they gave to the city to secure the performance of their paving contract, they described themselves as “ trading under the firm of W. R. Weaver & Co.” If I understand the opinion of the majority of the Court, the judg*44ment in this case is reversed because they are not a trading partnership.
(Filed 12th December, 1890.)