Court Opinion

ID: 6312928
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-02-18 20:17:59.351709+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:59:08.536361
License: Public Domain

The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Sergeant, J.
The question arising in this case has undergone *168a thorough discussion in the two late cases of Gram v. Seton, (1 Hall 262), and Cady v. Shepherd, (11 Pick. 400), where ail the authorities are examined, and the principle is settled that a partner may bind his copartner by a contract under seal, in the name and for the use of the firm, in the course of the partnership business, provided the copartner assents to the contract previously to its execution, or afterwards ratifies and adopts it; and this assent or adoption may be by parol. And we are satisfied that the rule is founded on principles of justice and policy, and supported by the general tenor of the adjudged cases in this country and in England. The only question in the present case is, whether there is any evidence to go to the jury to show that James Aitkin assented to the giving of the sealed bill in the name of the firm, before or at the time of its execution, or afterwards ratified it; and we think there is. The admissions made by him in the conversation with Carter, if believed, in connection with the fact that the money was got for the firm and went to its use, are evidence to go to the jury. He said that though he did not know of it at the time it was given, yet, if he had, he would have been perfectly satisfied; if he could make collections, he would pay it in October. He repeatedly desired it should be sued as a partnership claim, and declared the note was as good as if he gave his individual note. This and the whole tenor of the conversation tend strongly to the inference that he had authorized the giving of it; and we think the evidence ought to have been left to the jury to say whether such authority was given, or whether the defendant subsequently ratified the instrument.
On the additional count, we think the plaintiff has not shown a right to recover. Where the bond of one of the partners is taken for an antecedent partnership debt, it may be considered either as payment and extinguishment of such debt, or only a collateral security, according to the nature of the transaction and the circumstances attending it. Wallace v. Fairman, (4 Watts 378). But where there is no antecedent debt, but the bond of one partner is taken at the time money is loaned to the partnership, and as the consideration for loaning the money, it can hardly be treated as a collateral security. It must be considered as all one transaction, and the bond as the only security contemplated; unless, perhaps, there were strong and positive evidence to show an express agreement to the contrary by all parties. If so, then in this case the bond was the only debt; the plaintiff, if he recovered at all, must .recover on it, and not on the money counts. And as there was no implied contract by both, so the express promise proved was only by one; and, therefore, we are of opinion the charge of the court below was correct, that the plaintiff could not recover on the additional count.
Judgment reversed, and a venire de novo awarded.