Court Opinion

ID: 6579594
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-20 19:37:12.390019+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:57:13.728828
License: Public Domain

*92The opinion of the .court was delivered by
Peck, J.
If one. suffers another to hold him out as a partner, or to use his name in business as such, he is liable as a partner on a contract thus made, although in fact he has no.interest in the business of such partnership. When the defendant Hill was informed that Harrington, in his staging business, was using his name, under the name of L. D. Hill & Co., it does not appear that he forbid it, but that he afterwards saw Harrington and told him he must not use that name to hurt him, and that Harrington replied that he would not. The fair import of this is, that Hill acquiesced in such use of his name, on Harrington’s assurance that he would not thereby injure him, or, in other words, that he would not thus use his name beyond his ability to indemnify him, and that he would save him harmless. The risk of Harrington’s neglect to redeem this pledge was upon Hill, and not upon those to whom Harrington should, in his staging business, thus pledge the credit of Hill. It makes no difference that Hill knew nothing of the giving of the note in question till about the time of the commencement of the suit. It is urged by the defendant’s counsel, apparently with great confidence, that as it did not appear that the plaintiff ever knew of the previous use of the defendant Hill’s name by Harrington in his staging business, nor what representations, if any, Harrington made to Smith, the plaintiff, at the time he executed the note by the name of L. D. Hill & Co., the defendant Hill cannot be held liable. This would be material, if the signature did not disclose the name of Hill; as it might then be urged that the plaintiff did not take the note relying on the credit of Hill. But as the name of the defendant Hill appears specifically upon the face of the note as one of the makers, the case is quite different, since the legal intendment is, that the payee takes a note upon the faith of the persons whose names appear upon it as makers. The common practice of this court is, in cases tried by the court when the facts are found by the county court, if the judgment of the county court is reversed, to proceed and render final judgment, such as the facts warrant; but in this case we conclude to reverse the judgment, and grant a new trial.
Judgment reversed and new trial granted.