Hibbler v. De Forest
Supreme Court of Alabama
Wkit of Error to the Circuit Court of Mobile county. Assumpsit by De Forest, Morris & Wilkins, on a bill of exchange, drawn in their favor by A. B. Wooldridge, agaist Child, Hibbler and Pearson as acceptors. Child pleaded his discharge as a bankrupt, and the plea was confessed. Hibbler & Pearson pleaded the general issue, supported by an affidavit, that the bill was not accepted by them, or by any one with authority from them.
Read the full summary
Wkit of Error to the Circuit Court of Mobile county. Assumpsit by De Forest, Morris & Wilkins, on a bill of exchange, drawn in their favor by A. B. Wooldridge, agaist Child, Hibbler and Pearson as acceptors. Child pleaded his discharge as a bankrupt, and the plea was confessed. Hibbler & Pearson pleaded the general issue, supported by an affidavit, that the bill was not accepted by them, or by any one with authority from them. At the trial on this issue, it appeared the drawer of the bill was a plantel, and desired certain hardware. He went to Child, one of the firm C., H. & P., and requested…
1Opinion of the CourtGoldthwaite, J.
The evidence set out in the bill of exceptions, shows that the acceptance of the firm, was given by one of the partners as a security for a debt of a third person; and the question is, whether the jury was authorized to infer an au*94thority thus to bind the firm, from the circumstance that they were commission merchants for the sale of cotton.
It is well settled, both in England and in this country, that a partnership connexion does not, necessarily, invest one partner with the power to give a valid security in the name of the firm, either for his own private debt or for that of another. [Gow on…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Dob & Dob v. HalseyNew York Supreme Court · 1819
3Cited by2 opinions
- Lang's Heirs v. WaringSupreme Court of Alabama · 1850
- Pearson v. HoweSupreme Court of Alabama · 1847