By act of partner. partner in a firm trading under a particular name in one branch of business, and some of the partners in

that firm carried on another line of business in the same name, and issued a bill in the name of the firm, merely on account of transactions concerning the latter business, in which A. had no concern, yet it was held that he was liable to a bonâ fide holder', yet where persons are partners only in a particular and single transaction, and not general partners, they are not liable even to a bonâ fide holder, on a bill issued by one of them in relation to a different concern 2.

An act of bankruptcy committed by one of several partners, however secret, ipso facto determines his power to make use of the name of the firm, and no person can derive any benefit or right of action against the firm, upon any bill or note negotiated by the party, after such his act of bankruptcy 3. And after the dis

He then got the acceptance discounted, and applied £180 in payment of partnership debts, reserving enough to himself. The plaintiff, after Whitehouse's death, was obliged to take up his acceptance, and now sued the defendants on the note. Matthew suffered judgment by default, but Smithson proved that the plaintiff, before he took the note, had received notice of an advertisement by him, warning persons not to trust Matthew on his account, and that he would be no longer lia ble for drafts drawn by the other partners on the partnership account. And Lord Ellenborough held, that the plaintiff having taken the note after such warning could not recover, and therefore nonsuited him, and on motion to set the aside nonsuit, the court refused the rule.

1

Swan v. Steele and another, 7 East. 210.-Baker v. Charlton, Peake, 80.-ante, 402, note 2.

Williams v. Thomas, Hunter, and Latham, 6 Esp. Rep. 18.Messrs. Leake and List drew a bill for £1500 in favour of plaintiff, for goods furnished the ship Cecelia, in which the defendants were charged as acceptors. Defendants proved that the acceptance was made by the defendant Latham on his own account. The defendants were partners in the ship Cecelia, of which defendant Thomas was Captain, and had guaranteed Leake and List to secure to them the money for the outfit. Per Lord Ellenborough, Leake and List could give no better title to the holder then they had themselves; they could not draw for a general account, but for the account of the ship only; they could not bind Thomas by drawing a bill upon him, and the other defendants, for an account unconnected with the ship. Plaintiff nonsuited.

3 Thomason and others v. Frere and others, 10 East. 418. Thomason, Underhill, and Guest, were partners in trade at Birmingham, and being indebted to the defendants to the amount of £1800, and creditors upon Gamble and Co. for £1450, Underhill and Guest, on the 11th of October, 1807, without the knowledge of

solution of a partnership by agreement duly notified By act of partner. in the Gazette, one of the persons who composed the firm cannot put the partnership name on any negotiable security, even though it existed prior to the dissolution, or were for the purpose of liquidating the partnership debts, notwithstanding such partner may have had authority to settle the partnership affairs. And after notice of the dissolution of a partnership published in the Gazette, and sent round to the customers of the firm, if one of the partners, who carries on the business under the old firm, draws, accepts, or indorses bills in the name of that firm, the other partners need not apply for an injunction against his doing so, for they are not liable upon such bills, given to a person ignorant of the dissolution of the partnership 3. And though it has been held that notice in the Gazette is not sufficient against persons who were customers of the firm, during the existence of the partnership, and that a particular notice should be given to each; it appears to be clearly established, that notice in the Gazette is at all events sufficient against all persons who

Thomason, who was then abroad, indorsed to the defendants a bill drawn by Thomason, Underhill, and Guest, upon and accepted by the agents of Gamble and Co. for this £1450. Underhill and Guest had, on the 7th October, 1807, committed acts of bankruptcy, upon which separate commissions issued on the 19th. The bill for £1450 became due on the 6th December, and was then paid. And to recover this money, the present action was brought by Thomason and the assignees of Underhill and Guest. The house of Thomason, Underhill, and Guest, was still indebted to the defendants beyond the amount of the sum now sought to be recovered. The plaintiffs were nonsuited by Grose, J. But on a rule nisi for a new trial, the court (Lord Ellenborough absente) held, that the indorsement having been made after an act of bankruptcy, though before the issuing of the commission, and though for the purpose of paying a partnership debt, was invalid, and they inclined to think that this action being brought to recover the money received on the bill, which had been thus wrongfully indorsed, the defendants had no right to set off their demand upon the firm against this claim by Thomason and the assignees. Rule absolute. And see Ramsbottom v. Lewis, 1 Campb. 279.

'Kilgour Finlyson, 1 Hen. Bla. 155.-Abel v. Sutton, 3 Esp. Rep. 108.-Watson, 209.-Henderson and another v. Wild, 2 Campb. 561-Wrightson and another v. Pullan and another, 1 Stark. 375. 2 Newsome v. Coles, 2 Campb. 617. and Wrightson and another 1. Pullan and another, 1 Stark. 375.

By act of partner. have not previously had transactions with the firm'. And where after the actual dissolution of a partnership duly notified in the Gazette, one of the parties accepted a bill in the name of the partnership firm, drawn after the dissolution, but dated before it, it was held that an indorsce who took the bill without notice of the dissolution, could not inforce the bill against the other members of the firm, and a distinction was taken by the court between such case, and the case of goods supplied after the dissolution of the partnership, but without notice, by a person who had been in the habit of supplying goods to the firm. And an alteration in the printed checks is sufficient notice of a change in the firm of a banking-house to customers who have used the new checks 3. And a dormant partner whose name has never been announced, may withdraw from the concern without making the dissolution of partnership publicly known 4. However, an admission made by one partner, after the dissolution; relative to a previous partnership transaction, will affect the firm ".

The death of a party is in general a revocation of all express and implied authorities given by him, but where A. being member of a partnership consisting of several individuals drew a bill of exchange in blank in the partnership firm, payable to their order, and having likewise indorsed it in the partnership firm, delivered it to a clerk to be filled up for the use of the partnership, as the exigencies of business might require, according to a course of dealing in other instances; and after A.'s death, and the surviving partners had assumed a new firm, the clerk filled up the bill, inserting a date prior

Gorham v. Thompson, Peake. 42.-Graham v. Hope, id. 154.— Fox v. Hanbury, Cowp. 449.--Godfrey v. Macauley, 1 Esp. Rep. 371.-Peake. Rep. 155.-1 Siderf, 127.-Leeson v. Holt and others, 1 Stark. 186.---Jenkins and another v. Blizard and another, 1 Stark. 418.-1 Mont. on Partn. 105, 6.

2

Wrightson and another v. Pullan and another, 1 Stark. 375.

3 Barfoot and another v. Goodall and another, 3 Campb. 147. Evans v. Drummond, 4 Esp. 89.

5 Wood v. Braddick, 1 Taunt. 104.-Halliday v. Ward, 3 Campb.

to A.'s death, and sent it into circulation; it was held By act of partner. that the surviving partners were liable as drawers of the bill to a bonâ fide indorsee for value, although no part of the value came to their hands '.

Wherever the law is silent, as to the extent of the above custom, it should seem that evidence of the usage of merchants is admissible, but not otherwise; and therefore where two persons, who were not general partners, drew a bill on A. B. payable to their order, and separately signed it, not in the name of any supposed firm, and only one of them indorsed it with his own name, in an action at the suit of an indorsee against A. B. the acceptor, Lord Mansfield, on a new trial, admitted evidence to prove, that by the universal usage, and understanding of all the merchants and bankers in London, the indorsement was bad, because not signed by both the payees; and accordingly the defendant had a verdict; notwithstanding it was insisted, that the validity of the indorsement was a question of law, and although the court of King's Bench, on the motion for the new trial, had previously declared their opinion in the same cause, that when a bill goes out into the world, the persons to whom it is negotiated, are to collect the state and relation of the parties from the bill itself; and that if they appear on the bill as partners, it would be of less public detriment to subject them to the inconvenience of being treated as such, than to permit them to deny that they are so; and that persons, by making a bill payable to their order, render themselves partners as to that transaction 3.

Usher and another v. William Dauncey and another, 4 Campb. 97. Lord Ellenborough said, that this case came within the principle of Russell v. Langstaff, Dougl. 513. that the power must be considered to emanate from the partnership not from the individual parther; and that therefore after his death, the bill might still be filled up so as to bind the survivors.

Edie v. East India Company, 2 Burr. 1216. 1221.-1 Bla. Rep. 295. S. C. See Phillips on Evid. 2d edit. 434, 5, 6.—Holt, C. N. P,

98,9. in notes.

Carwick T. Vickery, Dougl. 653. sed quare.

E

By act of partner.

If a factor of an incorporate company, draw a bill on such company, and one member accept it, the acceptance will not bind the company, because it is a private act of the party, and not a public act of the company. And on the same principle, if several persons, each in his individual capacity, employ one factor, and he draw a bill on all of them, and one accept it, the acceptance will not bind the rest'.

Sometimes an express authority is given by several partners to one, to act for all of them, in which case the person authorized acts as agent as well as partner, and his power and authority being express, he must be guided by it. An express authority given to one partner, after the dissolution of the partnership, to receive all debts owing to, and to pay those due from the partnership, on its dissolution, does not authorize him to indorse a bill of exchange in the name of the partnership, though drawn by him in that name, and accepted by a debtor of the partnership after the dis

solution2.

From this liability of partners to answer for the acts of each other, it is necessary, that after the dissolution of their connection, they should, in order to avoid the consequences of any one of the partners making, indorsing, or accepting a bill in their names, give notice in the Gazette, of the dissolution of partnership; and even this notice, as has been before observed, is not sufficient against persons who were customers during the partnership, unless they have actual notice of the dissolution; and the partners should therefore give notice of the dissolution to their individual correspondents 3. Where one of several

Bul. N. P. 270.-Mar. 2d ed. 16.-Beawes, pl. 228.-Molloy, b. 2. c. 10. s. 18.

2

Kilgour v. Finlyson, 1 Hen. Bla. 155.-Abel v. Sutton, 3 Esp. Rep. 108.

3 Gorham v. Thompson, Peake, C. N. P. 42.-Graham v. Hope, id. 150.-Fox v. Hanbury, Cowp. 449.-Godfrey v. Macauley, 1 Esp. Rep. 371.-1 Mont. Partn. 105, 6.-Ante, 47; but see Wrightson v. Pullan, 1 Stark. 375,-Ante, 48.